On Balanced-Budget Amendments

by Michael J. New

Like Ramesh, I do not think House Republicans should make passing a balanced-budget amendment a top priority. It may be useful as an act of political theater, but getting such an amendment ratified would be a virtual impossibility. There are not 67 votes for a balanced-budget amendment in the U.S. Senate and getting 38 states to ratify it would be extremely difficult. Additionally, having analyzed state fiscal policy, I think that tightly worded balanced-budget amendments can lead to tax increases. Furthermore, in some cases short-term deficit spending may be better economic policy than raising taxes.

However, enforceability is not among my main concerns. Right now, 49 states have balanced-budget amendments. Obviously these amendments differ in terms of their stringency, but they all seem fairly well enforced. In many cases, state balanced-budget amendments have resulted in politically damaging spending cuts and tax hikes. I am sure that in these situations, many legislators and governors would have liked to ignore these balanced-budget amendments, but they seemed to make a good faith effort to abide by them. I really cannot think of any instances where state balanced-budget amendments were unenforced.

Interestingly, state courts have been very tough on other fiscal limits, but fairly supportive of balanced-budget amendments. During a budget standoff in Nevada in 2003, the courts basically nullified Nevada’s constitutional supermajority requirement for tax increases.

However, they left Nevada’s balanced-budget amendment intact.

— Michael J. New is an Assistant Professor at The University of Alabama, an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute and an Assistant Professor at The University of Alabama.

The Corner

The one and only.