I've argued on many occasions that one of the big lessons we need to learn from this recession is that state-level balanced budget requirements are highly destabilizing. When a recession hits, spending goes up for social services and taxes fall as income, sales, property values, and other sources of revenue for state and local governments decline.
The result is a big hole in state and local government budgets, and that forces either increases in taxes or cuts in spending both of which make things even worse. And though some state and local governments were an exception to this, far and away the choice is to cut spending. We can see this in the state and local government employment statistics:
That's not what we want to have happening when we are trying to recover from a recession. It would be much better if states had rainy day funds to rely upon, and if the rainy day funds fall short, the federal government could backfill the budget holes to prevent the destabilizing downsizing.
So have we learned the lesson? Nope, at least not if you are a Republican. They'd like to impose the same destabilizing rules on the federal government:
House pursues balanced-budget bill; need for backup plan acknowledged, by Rosalind S. Helderman, Paul Kane and William Branigin, Washington Post: The Republican-controlled House defied a presidential veto threat and forged ahead Tuesday with a bill to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget...
The House bill is an updated version of the kind of balanced-budget amendment that Republicans have coveted for years. ...
They could put in an exception for recessions, there's one for wars, but spending to combat the recession is a big part of what Republicans are ticked about. And an exception would likely be subject to a 2/3 rule anyway, so practically the exception wouldn't help much.
How can a party that is so irresponsible with the nation's economic matters -- budget arsonists to a large degree -- have a reputation for competence in this area?