Balanced Budget Amendment Needed to Fix National Debt Crisis

If Congress had passed a balanced budget amendment 10 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this fiscal wreck

April 25, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

Orrin Hatch is the senior senator from Utah and ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

In 1997, after a fierce debate, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution I introduced was defeated by just one vote in the United States Senate. Fourteen years later, our nation is facing a debt crisis of epic proportions. Our national debt has gone from roughly $5 trillion in 1997 to over $14 trillion today. That’s more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

And that debt keeps growing. According to Congress’s nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, the nation’s debt could reach an astonishing 90 percent of gross domestic product in less than a decade, with the government spending almost $1 trillion on interest payments alone. [See editorial cartoons about the budget and deficit.]

It’s no wonder the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.” And the International Monetary Fund recently found that the United States doesn’t have a “credible strategy” to confront this looming crisis.

This situation has only gotten worse under the Obama administration. Over the last two years, discretionary spending has increased by 84 percent, if you include the failed economic stimulus, with spending reaching 25 percent of our nation’s economic output—a level not seen since World War II.

In fact, our skyrocketing debt is the number one issue I hear about from the people of my state of Utah, who rightly do not understand why Washington can’t make the tough choices they do for their families.

There’s no doubt that if Congress had passed a balanced budget amendment over 10 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the fiscal wreck we are in today. But that doesn’t mean we can’t put our nation on a more secure fiscal path by enacting one today. In the Senate, 47 senators are supporting a balanced budget amendment I’ve introduced that would require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress every year that limits spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product, and that requires supermajorities in both houses of Congress to raise taxes or increase spending. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should Congress increase the debt ceiling?]

In fact, this isn’t a novel or new idea. Every state, except Vermont, and countries like Germany and Switzerland all have this common-sense requirement. It’s time Washington does as well.

Some ask, why do we need a constitutional amendment—why can’t Congress and the White House come together and cut our debt? The answer is simple: This is the only way to force Washington to act. In fact, every grand compromise over the past three decades to tackle our debt has been undone almost immediately after being enacted by Congress, with massive spending increases almost as soon as the ink is dry.

Today, our nation is having a great debate over the size, scope, and shape of our national government—over how much we can afford without forcing future generations to foot the bill. The president is asking Congress to raise our debt limit without putting forward any meaningful proposals to combat our debt. I strongly believe that before we even consider this, the Senate must take up a balanced budget amendment. This kind of strong budgetary reform would put us on a path to fiscal health and would forestall this White House or any future White House from asking the American people to simply greenlight more debt.

A balanced budget amendment makes sense; its time has more than come. Now, Congress must act.

See the other side of the debate: Read Center for American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly on why a balanced budget amendment would be a dangerous distraction.

Does the U.S. Need a Balanced Budget Amendment?

View Results
Tags:
national security terrorism and the military,
Orrin Hatch,
Congress,
Republican Party,
Constitution,
deficit and national debt,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

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

I've always been a fan of Sen. Hatch, but with all due respect, the balance budget amendment seems to be a solution only to people who have no solution to the real problem.

The out of balanced budget digging the country into a deeper and deeper financial hole is an effect, not a cause. Passing laws to address symptoms is folly. Making them Amendments is plain dangerous.

Believing BBA is a solution is like advocating an Amendment that mandates every federal politician vote their conscience instead of engage in influence peddling, political posturing and vote swapping. To what end? Nothing. Zero.

What's the remedy for an unconstitutional budget?

What's the penalty?

Nothing. Zero.

The Constitution isn't the place where penalties for non-compliance are specified. That's what laws do. A balanced budget law might be worthy of discussion. An Amendment? No way. Breaking the Constitution by adding what should be at most a law, with the unspoken rationalization that we made it an Amendment because we want it to be taken seriously (and a non-solution at that) sets a terrible precedent for future generations.

The irony of this faux-solution is that it's deja vu all over again. Pols pass laws to "address" symptoms, claim victory as if they accomplished something, then act befuddled when more laws are needed later. "Shocked, Shocked I say to find that people who hate still commit crimes. I guess we need tougher hate crime legislation." As if legislating "no hate" is a solution.

To tackle the national debt, tackle the ever-growing size of the Federal government. To tackle that, have specific, clear debates about the role of government. My "Role Of Scorecard" identifies each of America's 26 sectors, lists each of the multiple responsibilities needed to make the sector function and identifies which player is in charge of each responsibility in each sector.

Because the truth is, you can't unNanny the State without curbing the role of government. And you can't do that in isolation from the other players - citizens, companies, etc. The real solution addresses the whole puzzle, not just the edges.

Will everyone agree to the specifics? At least there will be a new tool to compare where we are, where we want to be against other's in the past and present. "Oh look, my learned opponent's Role Of Government choices align with the Soviet Union circa 1950s. Now I understand why his every solution grows government. Let's talk about how well price fixing worked for the Russians. Do his constituents want what he wants? Let's ask them."

Forget about the CBO "scoring" a fake "budget" half "plan" as the only "objective" measure. The "Role Of Scorecard" will be more valuable instantly because it requires no predictions, estimations or assumptions. It's Yes and No answers to one of the most important questions facing America and Americans, "Who is responsible?"

@DanFarfan

p.s. As a legitimate fan of Sen. Hatch, if he wants my help, I'm in.

Dan Farfan of AZ 11:19AM April 27, 2011

Passing the balanced budget amendment IS the only good way we have to

(1) stabilize our currency in the the world market;

(2) mitigate the trade deficit; and,

(3) control the risk of runaway inflation.

Ask anyone ... it's time for the balanced budget amendment.

Dave Brown of CO 9:50AM April 26, 2011

Sen. Hatch eloquently states why we need this amendment. He points out that every other "great compromise" to balance the budget was almost immediately undone by Congress. Unfortunately, Sen. Hatch's own version includes a loophole a mile wide. Congress could "declare war" with one vote by a simple majority and Congress could deficit spend with no limit for as long as the "declared war" was in place. The wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam both were >10 years. This amendment would probably be just the excuse Congress would need to suddenly start declaring wars again, since declaring war the next time we get into a military conflict would be easier than making the tough decisions needed to balance the budget. We do need this amendment but we need an air-tight amendment that Congress cannot nullify so easily.

Alan Parks, President, Americans for a Balanced Budget Amendment of TX 3:03PM April 25, 2011

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

advertisement