In 1994, Congress was considering a constitutional amendment to require the federal budget to be balanced. A stubborn habit of running deficits had gotten out of control in the previous decade and a half, quadrupling the national debt. ADVERTISING In
In 1994, Congress was considering a constitutional amendment to require the federal budget to be balanced. A stubborn habit of running deficits had gotten out of control in the previous decade and a half, quadrupling the national debt.
In 1994, Congress was considering a constitutional amendment to require the federal budget to be balanced. A stubborn habit of running deficits had gotten out of control in the previous decade and a half, quadrupling the national debt.
“The balanced-budget amendment is a desperate but necessary device for restoring discipline to the management of the nation’s treasury by Congress and the president,” the Chicago Tribune editorial board said then.
The amendment, sponsored by Illinois’ Democratic Sen. Paul Simon, passed the House but fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate. Looking back, we think we were on to something.
Ensuing developments only highlight how useful the rule could have been.
After a brief spell of budget surpluses during the Clinton administration, deficits came roaring back, topping out at $1.55 trillion in 2009, during the Great Recession. The total government debt has tripled since 2000, and projections say it will expand at an unhealthy pace in the coming decade.
But there is one glimmer of hope: the revival of the balanced budget amendment.
With Republicans in control of 33 legislatures after this year’s election, the chances of ratification by the states are good. And 28 states already went so far as to call for a constitutional convention to consider such a measure.
The prospect of a convention that could stray into further amending the Constitution might be enough to spur Congress to approve the amendment and send it to the states, with 38 required for ratification.
The last time such a proposal came to a vote, in 2011, it fell well short in the House, partly because supporters of the idea couldn’t agree on the particulars — notably whether to include a spending limit of 18 percent of GDP.
The version introduced last year by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, set the spending ceiling at 20 percent of GDP. But there hasn’t been much appetite in Washington for tough fiscal decisions, so the details didn’t much matter.
Each version contains an escape hatch for emergencies such as wars and recessions, allowing Congress to run a deficit by a three-fifths vote of each house. The spending limit, if included, could be waived by a two-thirds vote of each.
In practice, all this means a constitutional amendment is no guarantee of fiscal responsibility. With enough members who are averse to restraining spending or raising taxes, the limit could be breached in good times as well as bad.
State experience indicates that ingenious lawmakers can find ways around the balanced budget requirement that exists in 49 states.
Still, the federal experience shows that without such a requirement, lawmakers have an even easier time spending beyond the government’s means. The fact a constitutional amendment could be evaded is no reason to reject it. A determined thief can get into a locked car by smashing a window, but most people lock their cars anyway.
The better course would be for Congress and the president simply to summon the will to keep outlays at a level not to exceed income, year after year. As we learned in the 1990s, that option is not outside the realm of possibility.
But until such time as our leaders volunteer to abandon their irresponsible ways, a balanced budget amendment offers a good way to make them.
— Chicago Tribune
