Gramm-Rudmann. Had automatic cuts to keep the deficit down. It was the law of the land to have a balanced budget.Neither will your moronic proposal.
Because they will base their budget on the projected extra revenue the tax increases would allegedly bring. This figure is always grossly bloated, and when the actuals come in it won't be near as much of a largesse as they said, and WHAM! Even BIGGER deficits! Then will be the howls never ending, to raise taxes yet again.
When the PROBLEM actually is, they are not required by law to have a balanced budget. They used to be, it was laws called Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto during the 90s, that gave Bill Clinton his "surplus," but alas, they were thrown out by the courts.
Until we get such instituted again, we will never get out of the debt hole.
You don't actually care about debt and deficits, you just want the feel good thing of higher taxes on the evil rich.
There was no law requiring a balanced budget
This is not accurate.
GrammRudmanHollings's fixed deficit targets were not effect at holding down the deficit (also, interesting you left out the name of the bill's Democratic sponsor). To the (minor) extent budget rules played a significant part in the surpluses of the late 90s, they come from PAYGO, which was introduced as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.