When national revenues total equals to or exceed total expense in a fiscal year denotes a balanced budget. Emphasis needs mentioning that a balanced budget refers to either a situation where there is neither a budget deficit nor a budget surplus. Put simply, revenues equal expenses or exceed costs, but not where expenses exceed revenues.
Proponents of a balanced national budget uphold it will condense interest rates, increase savings and investments and further economic growth with favorable balance of trade deficits. Rather, Keynesian arguments against a balanced national budget appeal to the reasoning given that public sector operations usually have multiple and conflicting objectives with no standard measure of the returns of innumerable programs (Mikesell, 2014).
However, adherence to a rigid balanced national budget might jeopardize the most potent of means to an efficient economy, opening risks of slower growth, increased unemployment, poverty, and inequality. Further, a balanced budget might limit government's ability to use countercyclical fiscal policy forcing spending cuts when a stimulus is most needed. Recessions would be longer and more severe, and long-term growth prospects worsen.
A balanced national budget would be a national security disaster, as wars and other national security initiatives cost money, and a balanced budget will result in significant tax increases in case of emergencies. Most economists agree that the federal government needs to spend more during economic downturns, even if this requires deficit spending in the short-term, to help offset all the layoffs and cutbacks by the private sector.
Budget balancing works by containing costs and obtaining sources of income; if such income is not obtainable from loans, government’s inability to manipulate cash flows will undermine the effectiveness of economic policies. Notably, critics of a balanced budget argue that it would lead to the reduction and elimination of necessary services provided by the national governments, including social services and defense. Given an uncertain future, governments do not have control over its expenditures on the possibility of war, terrorism, economic depression, or other crises.
A balanced budget might occasion tax increases, thwart innovation, constrain national governments capacity to respond to citizens clients, and increase the unit cost of services. On the premise of uncertainty, maximum flexibility is needed if governments are to deliver efficiently on their mandates.
Economist argues that a balanced budget will decrease interest rates, increase savings and investment, shrink trade deficits and usher economic prosperity. The requirement of an economy void of deficits might occasion a smaller government and controlled wastes. A balanced budget could set a standard that elected officials would not want to miss, there are also legitimate concerns about how it would operate in practice.
A balanced budget designed almost exclusively to provide fiscal constraint provides the narrowest of controls. Mikesell, (2014) observed the budget process as a choice between alternative programs will be far from perfect. Thus, decision makers need sound financial information coupled with an efficient system that guides the decisions.
The response to Hurricane Katrina, the threat of ISIS, the refugee crisis in Europe are instances where government’s responses were possible given the flexibility of the budget process. Franklin Roosevelt's ill-fated attempt to balance the 1938 budget brought cataclysmic economic impact leading to a second depression. Recall that fiscal imbalances are a lack of political discipline, not an outcome of inadequate processes.

Reference list
Dangers of a Balanced Budget Amendment - US News. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-
Mikesell, J. L. (2014). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.