A Balanced Budget Amendment?

Mitt Romney and his Republican competitors all are plumping for a balanced budget amendment, as if that would solve all of America's woes. It got me thinking about what the wording of such an amendment might be.

After all, it's completely unrealistic to think a balanced budget is possible in times of war. Wars cost enormous amounts of money and paying for one as it's being fought just couldn't be done.

But America has only actually declared war five times in our long history. Most military actions are not declared by Congress. Sometimes there is a lesser authorization of the use of force, but it's just as expensive whether it's a declared war or not. Would undeclared wars be exempt from the amendment's requirements?

How about national emergencies? Times when the country is threatened but not actually under attack or not vital national interest is in jeopardy.

What about severe economic downturns or calamities such as a plague or an environmental disaster. Congressman Kantor's attempt at cutting other spending to pay for hurricane relief would be the norm unless there was another clause in the amendment citing another exemption.

So here's a proposed text for a balanced budget amendment. "The government of the United States shall not spend more money than it receives in tax and other revenues for any calendar year, unless Congress declares war on someone or other, or lets the president commit American forces in some part of the world, or in outer space, or the president declares a national emergency, or Congress thinks it would be a swell idea to spend some extra money, or maybe there was a surplus last year that's just hanging around the treasury gathering dust, or Congress finds some way to cook the books to make it look like the budget is in balance without it actually being so. Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation (LOL)."

It all reminds me of the Gramm-Rudman act of thirty years ago, and how long did that last?