[hnsmurf]

That wouldn't end the deficit, that would just ensure the deficit was 0 the day before elections. Also there's a slippery slope. This same logic, if we allow it to be applied to the deficit, could be applied to other things. No congressmen could be reelected if gay marriage is legal, etc.

[barrybe]

> That wouldn't end the deficit, that would just ensure the deficit was 0 the day before elections.

I think that's the point. Short-term borrowing is sometimes a smart idea, as long as there's a real plan to pay it off. The idea would be to only discourage irresponsible borrowing.

> This same logic, if we allow it to be applied to the deficit, could be applied to other things.

I think it's fairly uncontroversial that having unpaid debt is bad and should be avoided.. so it's not too similar to issues that are actually controversial.

[praptak]

"This same logic, if we allow it to be applied to the deficit, could be applied to other things."

There are legitimate reasons to discern between the deficit and those other things. Most law systems are based on a small set of core values which are deliberately made hard to change, i.e. made part of the supreme law.

I believe that the (preventing of) deficit has the characteristics shared by those core values: there is a consensus that it is bad (especially in the long term) and yet there's strong temptation to create it for the short term benefits (buying votes.)

[hnsmurf]

I don't disagree with you, but a lot of people feel the same about marriage. A lot of people (not me, btw) feel that this is a Christian country and it's antithetical to our founders' beliefs for gays to marry and yadda yadda.

The point I'm making is that everyone has a different idea of what those core values are.

[maxharris]

Just because people differ on moral values doesn't mean that a properly discovered moral code can't or won't be objective. For example, people differ in their understanding of physics (and often seem hopelessly wrong), but mechanics is what it is. Just because some people don't get it yet doesn't nullify or change physical laws.

The right way for anyone to figure out what their core values should be is to apply reason. Dedicated, hard-core Christians feel a certain way about a lot of things, but they ultimately base their conclusions on faith, which is the antithesis of reason.

[seabee]

That's a specious argument. Something like gay marriage is the result of writing a law; the deficit is an accumulation of many public spending programmes enacted under the law more often than by its creation.

This is basically a method of legislating a budget cap. Your 'slippery slope' argument in its correct analogy is no more than passing a law that outlaws gay marriage in the first place.