Thread: Balanced Budget Amendment-text

I thought some here might want to read what they're going to vote on, before the debate starts this week.

"112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


March 31, 2011
Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KYL, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. TOOMEY, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. VITTER, Mr. ENZI, Mr. KIRK, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BURR, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COBURN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. LUGAR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr.
JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. JOHANNS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. PORTMAN, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following joint resolution which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--
`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
`Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.
`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--
`(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
`(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.
`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
`Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.
`Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.
`Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
`Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
`Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
`Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.'

Section 4 and 5 are fat. This is the longest amendment ever, I believe and there are parts in there that aren't necessarily. The balanced budget and the 18% of GDP limit are already a tax limitation, you don't need a separate one. Section 9 is legalistic language, not appropriate for the Constitution. Section 11 is a copout. If the budget truly cannot be balanced in less than five years, then it shouldn't be hard to get the two thirds vote needed to maintain deficit spending.

Otherwise, a fine amendment.

My impression is that this is not a "clean" balanced budget amendment. Section 1, by itself, would outlaw deficit spending. Much of the rest is political- 18% of GDP is legislating smaller Fedreral government, which implies austerity measures at each economic downturn. The formula for estimating GDP would become a major issue. All the anti-tax language implies a very unworkable recipe for congress arguing about and being unable to do tax reform or even to pass any new law that involves revenue to pay for it. And it ignores the whole distinction of Social Security, which really shouldn't be counted with the rest of the debt.

I don't see the part where taxes may not be cut if it results in a deficit

Looks like a national suicide pill to me

Originally Posted by mahayana

My impression is that this is not a "clean" balanced budget amendment. Section 1, by itself, would outlaw deficit spending. Much of the rest is political- 18% of GDP is legislating smaller Fedreral government, which implies austerity measures at each economic downturn. The formula for estimating GDP would become a major issue. All the anti-tax language implies a very unworkable recipe for congress arguing about and being unable to do tax reform or even to pass any new law that involves revenue to pay for it. And it ignores the whole distinction of Social Security, which really shouldn't be counted with the rest of the debt.

Its seems pretty clear to me. The govt cant spend more than it takes in unless a supermajority votes for it, were at war, or repaying debt. Also caps taxes and spending. Lawyers wrote it and politicians will enforce it, so of course it will seem difficult to implement. No matter how its written the people have to hold them accountable. Look at the rest of the constitution. Its full of clear literal restrictions the govt ignores.

The question is will you vote yes or no?

I'm a long-time supporter of a Balanced Budget amendment (also of a Congressional Term Limits amendment). I would vote yes if all references to taxes and GDP are removed. This should be a simple requirement that spending be kept in balance with revenues, excepting only extreme circumstance.

Too bulky, and too anti-tax. (Not that I'm pro-tax, it just ties Congress' hands unnecessarily.)

How about something more like:
"Total outlays for any fiscal year cannot exceed the total receipts for the previous fiscal year.
This may be ignored for one fiscal year in time of national emergency, as determined by a 3/5 majority vote in both houses of congress.
Debt repayments shall not be considered outlays, nor borrowing considered receipts, for purposes of this amendment.
Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement...
This amendment shall take effect with the second fiscal year after the fiscal year in which it is ratified."

There's no mis-estimating current revenues; there's no mis-estimating the GDP; there's no worry of a court raising taxes where Congress didn't have the balls to; there's no differentiating between declared war or other military emergency; there Is allowance for national emergencies of a non-military nature; there's no inappropriate preclusion against tax increases or spending above 18% of GDP, neither of which I support, but should be allowed to Congress should it become necessary; and there's no passing the buck for a full presidential term. If you want to call it the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment instead of the Balanced Budget Amendment, then you could add in something to the effect of "No tax rate shall be raised except as approved by a 3/5 majority vote in both houses of congress."

Looks great to me... pass the damn thing.

Originally Posted by goober

I don't see the part where taxes may not be cut if it results in a deficit

Looks like a national suicide pill to me

It is a suicide pill for the welfare state.

Originally Posted by mahayana

I'm a long-time supporter of a Balanced Budget amendment (also of a Congressional Term Limits amendment). I would vote yes if all references to taxes and GDP are removed. This should be a simple requirement that spending be kept in balance with revenues, excepting only extreme circumstance.

Id support that too. Whatever gets it done.