• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • How Not to Advance a Balanced Budget Amendment

    Congress this week finds itself in a predicament of its own making.

    To show how serious they are about solving America’s deepening fiscal crisis, Republicans insisted that the 2011 Budget Control Act require the House and the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) before the end of the year. Yet from a range of BBA options—from weak to mild to robust—the House has chosen to vote on a version that does little to ensure less spending and lower taxes.

    This is no way to amend the Constitution or solve the massive problem the country faces: a bloated federal government that operates far beyond its means, making unlimited promises that feed escalating debts and will cripple the U.S. economy, undermine America’s prosperity, and lead to national insolvency.

    Federal spending in 2011 was $3.6 trillion, an all-time record. When adjusted for inflation, this is more than three times the peak level of World War II. Today’s enormous budget deficits—they have exceeded $1 trillion in each of the past three years—are a symptom of that excessive spending.

    Indeed, government spending is the source of every fiscal consequence; it is spending that creates the need for taxes and borrowing. This is why formulations that call for reducing deficits through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases are misguided. Controlling spending is the key to balancing budgets.

    In the immediate term, Congress should address this problem by pursuing a reform path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget. Saving the American Dream is Heritage’s plan to do just that: balancing the federal budget in 10 years and keeping it balanced in the future—without raising taxes or neglecting our national defense. Starting immediately, Congress should take every opportunity to cut and cap federal spending, and that includes addressing the unsustainable costs of America’s entitlement programs.

    A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.

    Proponents have long advocated this extraordinary step because other methods of controlling spending—by rule or statute—have broken down. What was once considered part of the nation’s “unwritten” constitution—that as a rule the government should not spend beyond its means—has been lost. A constitutional rule, if properly written and enforced, would have more power than any legislative mechanism for maintaining a limit on spending.

    As Heritage’s David Addington has previously stated, a BBA should do three core things.

    1. First, it should control spending, taxation, and borrowing by capping annual spending and requiring Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. These requirements are especially necessary under current circumstances—prior to having seriously reduced spending and reformed entitlement programs, the main drivers of the country’s debt.
    2. Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility.
    3. Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement.

    A BBA without these provisions doesn’t address the underlying spending problem, puts pressure on Congress to increase taxes or issue more debt rather than cut spending or reform entitlements, and invites unelected judges to insert themselves even more in the policymaking process. Which is to say that, rather than simplifying matters, a weak BBA would likely make the situation much worse.

    To be sure, a more definitive BBA is no easy matter. Additional provisions bring complications, add more moving parts, and may introduce into the Constitution’s principled framework policy outcomes that should remain the prerogative of the legislative process. While considerable work has been done to develop a robust amendment, questions of amendment language (both in terms of operational construction and enforcement) have not yet sufficiently been resolved to meet the high and deliberative standard of the United States Constitution.

    Nevertheless, the best way to press this discussion—which will surely not end with the current Congress—would be to place the strongest marker available on the table, aimed less at vote tallies and more at framing a national discussion on how to solve America’s most urgent problems.

    And remembering that successful constitutional amendments represent the codification of a new consensus resulting from a settled political debate, the best way for this Congress to advance a BBA—and the cause of limited government—is to consistently, persistently, and successfully pursue spending reductions and fiscally responsible actions aimed at actually balancing the federal budget.

    Posted in Featured, First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to How Not to Advance a Balanced Budget Amendment

    1. Mike says:

      Does any one really believe the needed amendments will ever be passed? Have we forgotten who the political class is? Federalism passed the point of non repairability when the majority of voters became govt check recipients. Too late it's over. All we can do now to end the historically unprecedented level of thievery is to default and end federalism. We have 50 state govt's to govern adequately with. I refuse to live a debt slave from libtard thievery or allow my posterity to. I have retired almost 20 years early to STOP pay fed taxes. Barder with ag products I produce at home and do business in real money (gold/silver coin). Stop aiding the crooks and starve them out! The sooner it falls the sooner we get our freedom back! The common defense cn be done with treaty same as we do now with Canada. The federal burden can never be repaid now. Get over it!

    2. Mike says:

      Does any one really believe the needed amendments will ever be passed? Have we forgotten who the political class is? Federalism passed the point of non repairability when the majority of voters became govt check recipients. All we can do now to end the historically unprecedented level of thievery is to default and end federalism. We have 50 state govt's to govern adequately with. I refuse to live a debt slave from libtard thievery or allow my posterity to. I have retired almost 20 years early to STOP paying fed taxes. I Barder with ag products I produce at home and do business in real money (gold/silver coin). Stop aiding the crooks and starve them out! The sooner it falls the sooner we get our freedom back! The common defense can be done with treaty same as we do now with Canada. The federal burden can never be repaid now. Get over it.

    3. steve h says:

      Matt – there is no chance the extreme right version of a BBA could every get supermajorities in both chambers to pass. And for that, I am glad. The less extreme version has no shot at passing either, and again, I am glad.

      The BBA is nothign more than a gimmick by politicians too cowardly to make the tough choices themselves. They'd rather add budget process to the constitution to lock in future policymakers. Total Cowardice.

      FInally, the BBA is insanity. No states or families would be able to balance their budget under these BBAs. States have separate capital and operating budgets – so they can still make investments. Families have mortgages, student loans, auto loans, etc.. None of that would be valid under these BBAs.

    4. Tom N says:

      What makes anyone think our elected representatives & the present administration will abide by a constitutional ammendment when they don't adhere to any present constraints. One and all, they just sweep the constitution under the rug & do what they want, the American people be damned.

    5. OAR says:

      This is the reason that we need a third part whose size and power is on par with the current two. Then we wouldn’t have these deadlock and perhaps some forward progress could be made.

    6. BeeKaay says:

      "Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility."

      ——> And watch the federal government purposely let terrorists nuke an American city, to scream "NATIONAL SECURITY! QUICK! OVERRULE THE BBA NOW!" and go back to business as usual.

      "Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement."

      —> How would it enforce itself? Every taxpayer should have the right to sue for enforcement. Not tax eaters, but tax PAYERS.

    7. TimAZ says:

      It seams to me that the problem is that politicians view their oath of office as a formality that is totally optional. The only solution I can see is to vote with the intent to replace politicians often, before they acquire the taint of DC. and begin to welcome it. As long as the their oath is valueless no amendment will contain a politicians personal desires over the will of their constituents. The regime demonstrates this on a daily basis.

    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.

    ×