• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • President Obama Is Against A Balanced Budget

    President Barack Obama declared in a press conference today that he is against the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution (BBA).  Obama said that a BBA is not needed for Congress and the President to balance the budget. The facts contradict the President’s statement and tell a different story.

    If it is so easy for Congress and the President to balance the budget, why are they running a $1.5 trillion debt or more this year? Ironically, the President submitted a budget to Congress for next year that was nowhere near balanced.

    The President’s $3.7 trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2012 was dead on arrival in Congress.  The Senate voted unanimously, 97-0, to reject the President’s budget.  Why?

    The President’s FY 2012 budget contains 43 tax hikes.  Curtis Dubay writes for The Heritage Foundation that his budget would raise taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next decade:

    In what is becoming an annual tradition, President Barack Obama’s newest budget proposes a host of unnecessary tax hikes that will slow economic growth. His fiscal year 2012 budget contains 43 tax hikes that will needlessly confiscate an additional $1.5 trillion from Americans over the next decade. That works out to $12,000 per household over that time.

    The President’s FY 2012 budget contains $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years.  Brian Riedl wrote for The Heritage Foundation that budget gimmicks have bee used to hide the true cost of President Obama’s blueprint for spending:

    The White House’s mid-session budget review recently forecast that President Barack Obama’s budget would create $9 trillion in budget deficits over the next decade–more debt than America accumulated from 1789 through 2008 combined. Yet even that figure likely understates the 10-year budget deficit by nearly $4 trillion. It completely excludes the proposed new health care entitlement, underestimates other costs, and fails to include the full price of major legislation that the President has endorsed.

    According to the Associated Press, the Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.3 trillion debt next year as a result of the President’s budget:

    The Obama administration is set to report Friday that the federal budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the second straight year, providing critics of government spending with fresh ammunition ahead of the midterm congressional elections. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That’s down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009 – the highest deficit on record. Soaring deficits have become a problem for Democrats in an election year focused on the weak economy.

    The fact that the President did not submit a balanced budget to Congress speaks to the fact that, without a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, Congress can’t balance the budget.  The President has proven that he is incapable of balancing the budget.  Congress and the President need the constitutional mandate that the President balance the budget, or it will not be done.

    The House and Senate have differing versions of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, yet they are similar in that they both force the President to balance the budget, cap spending, force Congress to pass increased taxes with a supermajority and make it harder to raise the debt ceiling.

    Both versions do the following:

    1. Force the President to submit a balanced budget every year the United States is not at “war” or engaged in “military conflict,” subject to waiver provisions;
    2. Cap spending at 18% of the economic output of the United States;
    3. Only allow Congress to increase taxes by a supermajority vote of both chambers (this is waived in the House version when in times of “war” or “military conflict); and,
    4. Only allow Congress to increase the debt ceiling by a supermajority vote of both chambers of Congress.

    For an excellent history of the BBA, please read Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from History by The Honorable Ernest Istook, Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  The time is now for Congress to discuss and debate ideas that will balance the budget.  Despite the President’s comments today, current law and current leadership have proven insufficient to get the job done.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to President Obama Is Against A Balanced Budget

    1. cejkn says:

      How about we get all the healthy people in the country to work and stop giving them a free ride off the backs of the people who do work? Nooooo,,,Obama has to go right for the Social Security & Medicare money which we the people set aside for our retirement, he has no right to that.

      • Evergreen says:

        Everyone please See the Movie 2016 It will answer many many questions. Then decide you Vote. Also encourage your Friends and Family to see it.

        Famous Quote !! And no truer words ever spoken in Americas past about Americas Future.

        "When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."

        - Noah Webster

    2. Bobbie says:

      What kind of family is the president talking about? An American family that fulfills their lifes obligations under freedom and independence and responsibly within their means? Or the families he entitles to free housing, daycare, food, education, health, etc while their employment is an income of pocket change? he wants more money for his entitled, including government workers and their unions he over pays. That's why the president threatens his rightful obligations to the elderly and military and vets. There the first to go…

    3. chromehawk says:

      The President has no say in the Amendment process. He neither gets a veto nor a vote.

    4. George Colorado says:

      A key portion of the presser was where he said his $1T in cuts are achieved by freezing spending at existing levels. Not letting costs grow is a spending cut? A typical liberal argument.

    5. Timo says:

      Despite what your economists and others will say, there will have to be tax hikes at some point. Though there may be long-term benefits for the US from the military conflicts, defense spending appears immune from any significant spending cuts. While everyone may take a big enough hit in some way, there are always those who stand to benefit from the lowering of the majority even further. Either way it's time to make a difference for the people, and not just the highest bidders.

    6. EJM says:

      The President and the Senate are already violating the 1974 law (passed by a Democratic Congress) that requires them to submit and pass a budget resolution before appropriating any money. Obama is violating the law withe the actions he is taking in Libya, but again with no effect. His health care bill is clearly unconstitutional for arrogating the federal government powers far greater and more sweeping than anything even dreamed of by the founders. Not even close. The fact that it will probably be a 5-4 vote shows how far our Constitution has been degraded and rendered almost meaningless by decades of "progressive" legal opinions.

      What no one has been able to tell me is what would Obama and the Senate now be doing differently even if we had a BBA in effect. Wouldn't he just ignore it as well? And dare the Congress to impeach him? Impeachment is far too political and disruptive a remedy for clearly unconstitutional actions of the executive. That is why the Balanced Budget Amendment should stipulate clearly what the consequences for breaching it are. It should include a provision forbidding any President who does not submit a balanced budget to Congress for 3 consecutive years when the nation is not in a state of war from being eligible at all to stand for election to a second term. Likewise any member of Congress for 3 consecutive Congresses who has not passed a balanced budget during those previous 6 years when the nation is not in a state of war shall be ineligible for reelection to his/her office in Congress.

      This would have several advantages.
      1) It is more flexible than a rigid BBA. There may be unforseen circumstances short of war which require the nation to spend over budget for a year or two.
      2) It makes the consequences of disobeying it crystal clear, just as the 22nd amendment fixers the presidential term limit to 2 terms and no President would dare to violate it or he surely would be impeached.
      3) The consequences and remedy are far less disruptive. Without this provision a President would provoke a constitutional and political crisis by violating the BBA, which paralyzes the country. With this provision he might get away with non-balancing temporariliy but will pay a cost to his own career that is far less damaging to the country.
      4) It accomplishes a second goal of term limits for members of Congress tied to their performance. By taking an oath to the Constitution they will be essentially accepting the contract with the American people to behave responsibly. Balance the budget and you can have a career in Congress. Cannot or will not do it? You are in breach of contract and ineligible to run for reelection. We'll strike a blow against the corrupt patronage system under which Congress operates as well.

    7. EJM says:

      The President and the Senate are already violating the 1974 law (passed by a Democratic Congress) that requires them to submit and pass a budget resolution before appropriating any money. Obama is violating the law withe the actions he is taking in Libya, but again with no effect. His health care bill is clearly unconstitutional for arrogating the federal government powers far greater and more sweeping than anything even dreamed of by the founders. Not even close. The fact that it will probably be a 5-4 vote shows how far our Constitution has been degraded and rendered almost meaningless by decades of "progressive" legal opinions.

    8. Milo says:

      I laugh at these comments. "Obama has no right to go for the Social security or Medicare money." How is refusing to make deep cuts in these organizations "going after them"? Obama is the one protecting these right now. Republicans want massive spending cuts…where are those cuts going to come from? If you were to take Medicare, defense and Social Sec off the table that leaves about ooh 15% of the budget left to work with? Mmmk so I guess we don't need things schools, roads, NASA or the CDC. Great! But at least we won't have to increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% of this country! I also love the continued myth that government employees are living off the fat of everyone else even though they make less than any of their corporate counterparts. Where's the outrage over banker's salaries after the bailout (due to Bush totally deregulating the industry)?

      • George Colorado says:

        Always blame Bush. Two key contributors were the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 (90-8 in the Senate, 362-57 in the House, signed by President Clinton) and the housing affordability legislation pushed by Democrats (and supported by Bush). Spending it $1T higher today than in 2007. Deficit in 2007 was $161B now $1.6T. Revenues are down about $400B from 2007 so the deficit isn't becasuse tax rates are too low. Are LaBron James and Alex Rodriguez overpaid – playing in taxpayer funded stadiumd and arenas? I wonder who has more millionaires – investment bankers or professional sports?

    9. Jeshurun says:

      Even Conservatives should acknowledge 'The Truth'…. While Obama and The Democrats aren't really interested in Balanced Budgets, neither are The Republicans. They had their chance, when they controlled both house of Congress, and they blew it. Why? Because the people who control both parties are fully intending to intentionally destroy America!

      They don't work for us, and never have. They're working for: The Catholic Church [ The Mother Of Harlots ] and The European Union [ Babylon The Great ]! Some of us aren't stupid….

    10. rubyTea says:

      never mind cutting the social entitlements – how about the corporate entitlements and the tax cuts to the wealthy – I'm sick of giving my money to the wealthy and big business – Big business who have off shored – their taxes and jobs – we should triple tax products produced by american companies who have off shored their production and then sell them back to us while waving the flag in our faces – shame shame shame

      • Bobbie says:

        ruby Tea (pretty name,) we don't have a choice paying government, but you aren't paying anything to big businesses unless you choose and the ones that off shore their business is directly due to government overreach mandated policies and tax cuts are just closer to the gross of what the company actually earned. With the government in between us and the businesses is costing more money for government interference. Don't look to government for your security, the government will label you for their security, increase government control.

    11. Dunkinlover says:

      The economy will never be any better until we get Obama out of office. I am sick and tired of having to work my butt off to have to pay people to sit at home and collect food stamps and welfare…The more kids they have the more money they get a month. I have friends who work as cashier's in a supermarket. They have told me the amounts and balance's on EBT cards is amazing. Like in the THOUSANDS!! And what do they purchase. Bakery cakes, $50.00-$150.00 dollars. Crab legs, Steak. All types of seafood. Is this "right"… I feel that if they get money from the Goverment they should have to be made to buy food they have to Cook themselves.
      If you want to stimulate the economy then LOWER the taxes. Not RAISE THEM. That is just plain common sense…

    12. Elijah says:

      Right… You do realize that the only two presidents to have struck up balanced budgets were democrats (Clinton & Jackson). Both managed to do so without a Constitutional Ammendment. I wish people like you believed in things like history, facts, and science.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×