While President Obama was accusing them of wanting to raid scholarship accounts for needy children in order to incinerate the money in the engine of some rich guy’s private jet (or something), Senate Republicans launched an effort to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, urging Congress to impose on itself the same budgetary rules by which 49 out of 50 (all but Vermont) states must abide.
All 47 GOP senators have signed on to legislation co-sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Mike Lee (R., Utah) that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget and limit federal spending to 18 percent of GDP. At a press conference outside the Senate chamber Tuesday, a pack of Republicans stressed the need for Congress to “finally learn to live within its means,” and urged their Democratic colleagues to join them in support.
“To truly fix the spending problem in Washington, we have to fundamentally change the rules that govern Congress,” Lee said. “If we want to eliminate deficits, reduce the national debt, get control of spending, preserve our constitutional priorities, and save our economy, it starts with the balanced-budget amendment. It is the only solution that guarantees future reforms will be enforced.”
“A balanced-budget amendment is simply the best way to cut out the smoke and mirrors when it comes to the federal budget process,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), warning that at its current borrowing rate the United States risks becoming subject to the “tender mercies” of our major creditors like China.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) announced last week that the House would take up a balanced-budget amendment in late July. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said he expected action in the Senate shortly thereafter.
In order to successfully amend the Constitution, the bill would need to pass both chambers with a two-thirds majority and be subsequently ratified with the support of at least 38 states. Polls suggest a significant majority of Americans support such an amendment.
Meanwhile, Democrats made sure to remind all who cared to listen that Pres. Bill Clinton was the last president to preside over a balanced budget (they failed to mention who was in charge of Congress then). Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) argued that because the House Republican budget doesn’t reach balance until about 2030, the GOP lacks the credibility to propose a balanced-budget amendment. “Practice what you preach,” he growled to reporters, adding: “There are all kinds of balanced-budget amendments, the [one] they are introducing gives a real break to very wealthy people. It would be much harder to get them to chip in their fair share.”
Indeed, from a Democratic perspective, an amendment that makes it more difficult for Congress to raise taxes would be a real tragedy. But either way, according to Schumer, Democrats aren’t “preaching” fiscal responsibility, so there’s no need for them to act responsibly (e.g., they’ve now gone 791 days without passing any budget, much less a balanced one).
With this amendment, who determines what constitutes 18% of GDP (which includes government spending) and when Congress passes legislation exceeding this limit, what is the remedy? The Supreme Court?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA balanced budget amendment is fine, but limiting spending to a certain GDP target is ridiculous. Do wars count towards that spending limit? US spending as a percentage of GDP was nearly 50% during World War II. A world war is an obvious case where spending limits would have to be thrown out the window, but what about "smaller" wars like the Iraq War, or Vietnam? Would deficits be allowed in those cases? What about unexpected increases in automatic stabilizers - for example, spending on unemployment insurance jumped significantly from 2007 to 2008 without any change in the law, but simply because more people became unemployed - should that force cuts in other areas? Some borrowing during tough times makes sense - it's the same logic behind, say, putting some regular expenses on a credit card while you're transitioning from one job to another rather than cancel the service and then have to pay activation fees to start it up again when you can afford it in your regular budget. Long term structural deficits are indeed a problem, but a balanced budget amendment that lacked an exception for emergency war spending or counter-cyclical borrowing would be foolish.
On the flip side, something like this would be nice since it would force Republicans to stop cutting taxes without cutting spending (although I'm sure the amendment is probably written in such a way that it would somehow, all logic aside, allow just that).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe if you actually read the ammendment, you could answer your own questions.
The answer is yes. The balanced budget requirement is waived during declared wars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA symbolic gesture, at best. Seriously, what practical effect would a balanced budget amendment have? Congress already violates the law on a regular basis (passing a budget, for example). Are they going to be arrested????
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to agree with PATea.
This is nothing more than political maneuvering for the upcoming 2012 election season.
If these gentlemen are truly serious about this, they will bring it up again when a Republican majority holds both House and Senate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I ask of those who favor a "balanced budget amendment" is that they set aside the "idea" of a balanced budget amendment and focus on the language of such an amendment - particularly the one by Senator Hatch, et al. that is under consideration.
It's the language - not the "idea" - that we live with. Once something like this is passed and then - as it will be - is ignored, circumvented or made into a complete joke, you're not going to have any success arguing "but this was supposed to do X or Y!"
And as written, this thing is a piece of garbage that makes me glad none of these guys was anywhere in the vicinity of the 1787 convention.
Think about the language of this proposal and how it will fare over the course of history and compare it to the simplicity, elegance and endurance of the language in the current Constitution.
Think of what over the course of decades and even centuries Congresses, Presidents and courts can and will do with terms like "fiscal year", "gross domestic product", "proposed budget", "new tax", "increase[ in] the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue", "the limit on the debt of the United States", "waiv[ing] the provisions", "declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect" (remember this doesn't mean that we're actually spending a dime fighting the "nation-state" in question), "military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security", "the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict", "increase in revenue", "United States Government" (sounds obvious, huh? - except that there's a reason the term "United States Government" appears nowhere in the Constitution), "repayment of debt principal" and "estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product".
This thing is a joke. If you think that it will prevent or even make difficult the undue accumulation of debt, then think about how politics actually works and consider, when someone points out that 49 states have such provisions, how well these provisions have actually prevented the accumulation of debt - both "actual" (money owed to people enforceable by contract) and "political" (money owed to people as a matter of statute)?
Anyway, here's Senate Joint Resolution 10:
"Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--
(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.
Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.
Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.
Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree Bart. If the GOP is truly interested in ensuring we get a balanced budget a simple amendment, probably only a couple lines, is what's needed. "Congress shall not appropriate or obligate more money than it receives in revenue in a given year."
What the GOP really wants is to limit spending and make it harder to raise taxes. That is fine policy, but it's something that should be done through actual budgets, laws and policy, not amending the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would say that 100 years of legislative history shows that your proper course of action not only is not going to happen, but given the nature of politics and politicians, will never happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAren't you guys the same ones who complained about how the Republicans always fail when it comes to political theater and how they need to do more to excite the interest of the average voter.
What do you think this move is?
Yes, it's going to fail, there's no way we will ever get enough Democrats to vote for it to reach the 2/3rds level in either house. But imagine the potential for campaign ads.
With deficits spiraling out of control, Congressman/Senator X voted against an ammendment that would have finally brought spending under control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBlah, blah, blah
Mark,
As long as we recognize it as such, that's fine. But we should be clear whether we're discussing policy or politics here.
*******
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you kidding me? Now NRO is asking me to complete advertisement quizzes in order to comment here??? Please, please change this awful system!!!
Seperating policy from politics is what got Republicans into this mess.
Is this a perfect ammendment?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo.
Will we ever agree on what the perfect ammendment is?
No.
Have politicians proven incapable of controlling themselves?
Yes
Waiting for congress to man up and do what they were hired to do is a fool's errand, it will never happen, because we the people don't want it to happen.
Look what happens to any politician who proposes to shut down a military base.
Look what happens to any politician who proposes even mild cut backs to one of the sacred entitlement programs.
I don't understand all of the negativity to this bill.
If we can use the debt crisis to get a balanced budget amendment, it will be a SILVER BULLET that will FOREVER change the political landscape.
If you can't spend more than 18% of GDP, what is the point of raising taxes? We aren't going to have a majority forever. Wouldn't it have been nice to have this restraint in place when Obama swept all three branches in 2008?
I do have serious problems with the specific bill, but you guys need to get on board with the general idea.
There are three ways to fix this bill:
1. A specific provision that says if the budget is not balanced, all spending will be automatically cut across the board until it complies with 18% of GDP. In other words, you'd restrict APPROPRIATORS in how they can appropriate if they fail to pass a balanced budget.
2. Designate some organization to calculate GDP AND rewrite it to be an average of the prior 3 years GDP. That way, there will be very little dispute over projections. All of the data will be out by that point and if they unfairly tinker with it, everyone will know.
3. Give congressmen to sue from this amendment and specifically designate the Supreme Court as having the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve a dispute arising from this amendment.
As for the various waivers, they are necessary and appropriately implemented in this particular bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately there are too many people who are quite willing to make the perfect, the enemy of the good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--"
This section is further abrogation of duty by the Congress. According to the current Constitution, Congress is the only legislative branch. With this amendment, the President would formally become part of the legislature and thus, a prime minister rather than only an executive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on. There are tax loop holes that are far from "job crushing." Doing away with a tax break for a corporation's jet will hardly be a job killer. Average wage earners pay a higher percentage than the top 1% who take advantage of tax breaks and loopholes. Middle America can not carry the burden any longer. Tax breaks do not insure jobs in the US. That should be pretty clear after a decade of such cuts and the current condition of our economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse