G-R-H

(redirected from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings)
Also found in: Financial, Encyclopedia.
AcronymDefinition
G-R-HGramm-Rudman-Hollings
References in periodicals archive ?
Congress set aside the strictures of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 several times during the 1980s and the 1990s.
First, in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that the enforcement of the automatic cuts in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was unconstitutional because that power was handed to the comptroller general of the United States, who is an appointed official in the legislation branch of government.
As a condition for increasing the federal debt ceiling, Congress and President Obama agreed on the mechanics of the BCA, which resurrected the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings concepts of spending caps and automatic cuts.
Similarly, the Pay-as-You-Go rules put in place by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings were meant to control new mandatory spending while leaving untouched what was already on the books.
In 1985, a debt limit debate led to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law of 1985, which set deficit targets and enforced them with sequesters.
715 (1983); the triggering of a sequester by the Comptroller General under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was invalidated by Bowsher v.
As a senior Capitol Hill staffer, he has had a hand in major budget legislation over the years including the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Deficit Reduction Act.
The first piece of legislation, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, was passed in 1985 as an attempt to curtail the growing federal deficit by reducing it by preset targets.
The BEA followed the late 1980s experience with the Budget Enforcement and Deficit Control Act of 1985 -- often referred to as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) Act (after the principal senators behind the legislation).
The Maastricht Treaty on European Union--like many recent budgetary agreements in the United States, including the two versions of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act--may best be understood as such a problem, where, to achieve group compliance, the terms of the treaty, the monitoring of its participants, and the application of positive and negative sanctions serve to constrain "free riders" who seek to escape the treaty's burdens while sharing in its rewards.
Rules like those contained in the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) bill or the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) have figured prominently in fiscal policy debates for many years now.
The balanced budget agreement created caps for this funding, setting levels that spending could not exceed without triggering the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sequestration.