The United States fiscal constitution since the congressional budget impoundment and control act

Jonathan W. Plante
{"title":"The United States fiscal constitution since the congressional budget impoundment and control act","authors":"Jonathan W. Plante","doi":"10.1007/s10602-024-09439-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite both chambers of the United States Congress passing budgetary rules to limit deficits and public debts, the deficit and, as a result, public debt, have increased dramatically. Most political economy literature has attributed these phenomena to the tragedy of the fiscal commons or political budget cycles. In contrast, this paper attributes these phenomena to a change in the fiscal constitution—specifically, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (CBICA) of 1974. Prior to the passage of the CBIA, the fiscal constitution was such that the Executive Branch led the federal budgeting process. The Executive Branch leading the budgetary process effectively established a constraint on Congress’ propensity to use deficit and public debt finance. The passage of CBICA, however, established a new fiscal constitution that removed this constraint. The CBICA provided Congress with the lead over the budgeting process. This new fiscal constitution established by the CBICA caused an increase in deficits and public debt—despite budgetary rules aiming to stop such increases. Budgetary historical narratives are provided to support the theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":44897,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional Political Economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-024-09439-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite both chambers of the United States Congress passing budgetary rules to limit deficits and public debts, the deficit and, as a result, public debt, have increased dramatically. Most political economy literature has attributed these phenomena to the tragedy of the fiscal commons or political budget cycles. In contrast, this paper attributes these phenomena to a change in the fiscal constitution—specifically, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (CBICA) of 1974. Prior to the passage of the CBIA, the fiscal constitution was such that the Executive Branch led the federal budgeting process. The Executive Branch leading the budgetary process effectively established a constraint on Congress’ propensity to use deficit and public debt finance. The passage of CBICA, however, established a new fiscal constitution that removed this constraint. The CBICA provided Congress with the lead over the budgeting process. This new fiscal constitution established by the CBICA caused an increase in deficits and public debt—despite budgetary rules aiming to stop such increases. Budgetary historical narratives are provided to support the theory.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自《国会预算扣押和控制法》以来的美国财政宪法
尽管美国国会参众两院都通过了限制赤字和公共债务的预算规则,但赤字和公共债务却急剧增加。大多数政治经济学文献将这些现象归因于财政公地悲剧或政治预算周期。与此相反,本文将这些现象归因于财政宪法的变化,即 1974 年的《国会预算和扣款控制法》(CBICA)。在《国会预算和扣款控制法》通过之前,财政宪法规定行政部门主导联邦预算编制过程。行政部门主导预算编制过程,有效地限制了国会利用赤字和公共债务融资的倾向。然而,《中美洲信任协 议》的通过确立了新的财政宪法,消除了这一限制。该法案规定国会主导预算编制过程。尽管预算规则旨在阻止赤字和公债的增加,但《中美洲一体化协 议》确立的新财政宪法却造成了赤字和公债的增加。为支持这一理论,我们提供了预算方面的历史叙述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Constitutional Political Economy is a forum for research in the broad area of constitutional analysis, which lies at the intersection of several approaches in modern economics, sharing a common interest in the systematic integration of the institutional dimension - the study of political, legal and moral institutions - into economic analysis. While its primary discipline is economics, Constitutional Political Economy is explicitly interdisciplinary, aiming to encourage an exchange between the various social sciences, including law, philosophy, political science and sociology. Theoretical and empirical research, as well as contributions to constitutional policy issues, are considered for publication. Officially cited as: Const Polit Econ
期刊最新文献
Constitutional landmarks: Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Economic rights by Charles M. Lamb and Jacob R. Neiheisel. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 2021. pp.296. 978-3-030-55574-0 (hardcover) Election campaign finance bans and corruption: effectiveness across parliamentary and presidential democracies The Italian Constitutional Court and recentralization along the pendulum of regionalism Non-compliance as a determinant of constitutional change? A comparative study Constitutional artisans: James Buchanan and Vincent Ostrom on artifactual man, the constitutional attitude, and the political economy of constitutional design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1