Balanced Budget Amendment Makes a Comeback

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall joins Republicans in push to curtail federal spending

February 7, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

A long-time conservative goal is seeing a recent resurrection in Congress. Faced with tough choices about the federal budget, a few Democrats are joining Republicans to support statutory limits on future government spending, including a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Such measures have a slim chance of passage, but are likely to become a greater part of the discussion as lawmakers look to pass a spending measure for 2011 and raise the debt ceiling. [Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby first proposed a balanced budget amendment in 1987, when he was a Democrat (he joined the Republican Party in 1994)and he has continued to introduce it during every session of Congress. But this year, his amendment has received a bit more notice, as a senator from across the aisle, Mark Udall of Colorado, added his name as a cosponsor. "The United States has balanced its budget only five times in the past 50 years. Meanwhile, we've racked up a record debt that threatens our future economic leadership," Udall said in a statement. According to his office, Udall is the first Democratic senator to support a balanced budget amendment since Georgia Sen. Zell Miller supported one eight years ago. The amendment would prevent the government from spending more than it earns in revenue, or more than 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the previous year. Congress could only go around the limits by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, or through a congressional declaration of war.

[See the top 10 cities to find a job.]

The last time Congress seriously dealt with a balanced budget amendment was in 1995, when Republicans pushed for a similar measure as part of their "Contract with America." The amendment overwhelmingly passed the House and came within one vote of the two-thirds majority necessary in the Senate before it could be sent to state legislatures for ratification. This time around, it isn't part of the GOP's platform, but several prominent Republicans, including Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, have endorsed the idea. Newly elected Utah Sen. Mike Lee has also called for an amendment with even more strict spending caps, and has said he would oppose any increase in the debt ceiling unless an amendment is agreed to.

[Check out editorial cartoons on the economy.]

Another Democrat, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, has added her name to a Republican proposal to put statutory limits on future government spending. The measure isn't as drastic as a constitutional amendment, but it would likewise require Congress to slash its spending. The Commitment to American Prosperity Act would cap federal spending at 20.6 percent of GDP by 2021, by slowly tightening budget limits each year, beginning in 2013. If Congress couldn't come up with the cuts, the president would be authorized to make evenly distributed cuts throughout all federal departments. If passed, it wouldn't be the first time Congress has restricted its own ability to spend money. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities blasted McCaskill's proposal, saying that it would require $4.5 billion in draconian cuts to federal programs while leaving costly tax loopholes in place.

Both proposals have a long way to go before being enacted. But as the White House and Congress look for ways to resolve a budget stalemate, they're likely to consider long-term debt-reducing measures.

 

Tags:
Richard Shelby,
Democratic Party,
Mark Udall,
Mike Lee,
Claire McCaskill,
Orrin Hatch,
Congress,
Republican Party,
deficit and national debt

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Already sufficient states have called for a Article V Convention to begin the ratification process for a balanced budget amendment. The call is peremptory meaning that Congress cannot debate the issue. Their only function is to call the convention. Not doing so is a violation of their oath of office.

In fact, there is legal basis if there were a daring police office, members of Congress could be arrested for not doing so.

Please don't come back with argument that a Convention would not be wise. It's peremptory. No debate until after the call!

Sam Gallo of LA 2:55PM April 11, 2011

It's time our elected officals cut up the country's credit cards. At some point we will reach our limit.

It's funny when our president touts a savings of 50 billion dollars over 10 years. What a pretty sound bite. That's 5 billion a year. What about the other 1 trillion 495 billion dollars per year? Oh I know just Charge It.

Big Deal Mr President. You are a spending addict.

Mr Wondeful of FL 8:56PM February 12, 2011

McCaskill now acting like a Republican. She must hope we voters in Missouri will forget about her unabashed support for all things Obama in 2012. I won't.

Davd of MO 8:21PM February 08, 2011

Photo Galleries

Women on Death Row

Only 12 women have been executed on death row in the U.S. since 1976.

advertisement

Latest Videos