The Balanced Budget Amendment

Once again, a balanced budget amendment has come forward. By one count, there have been a dozen and a half such proposals over the past half-century or so. All of them have failed – in 1997, it failed by one vote in the Senate. Will this latest proposal go that way? I hope so – not because I disagree with the concept, I wholeheartedly support the concept. In fact, Utah's state constitution requires a balanced budget, and that is one of the reasons Utah is called "the best managed state in the Union," by no less than the Pew Center's Government Performance Project.

My problem is with the details of the legislation.

Let me summarize the proposal:

1) Federal outlay cannot exceed income, unless 67% of Congress agrees.
2) Federal outlay cannot exceed 18% of GNP, unless 67% of Congress agrees.
3) The President must submit a balanced budget, as defined in 1 & 2.
4) Tax increases require a 67% vote of Congress.
5) The debt limit cannot be increased, unless 60% of Congress agrees.
6) Congress may waive these restrictions in times of war – as declared by Congress.
7) Congress may waive these restrictions in times of " imminent and serious military threat to national security" – as declared by 60% of Congress.
8) No federal or state court can order an increase in revenue to balance the budget.
9) Total income cannot include borrowed funds.
10) [The standard enforcement clause.]
11) [The standard "take effect" clause.]

It sounds so good, why should anyone object?

It does sound good, and, again, I agree that America desperately needs to balance the federal budget. Deep down, however, I'm not convinced a balanced budget amendment will actually balance the budget. The only real guarantee America has for fiscal responsibility is to send fiscally-responsible adults to Washington. As President James Madison once wrote:

I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there new virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks – no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness, without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea [a fantasy]. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who choose them.

[Speech in the Virginia Ratification Convention, 20 June 1788, emphasis added.]

That's the solution to the problem. Until we reach that solution, I agree that we need to treat the symptoms of the problem. This isn't the right treatment; I have two fundamental objections to this proposal. The first deals with the exceptions, the second deals with ratification:

First, a greater majority is not enough.

Since definitions are important here, I will use these:

A "simple majority" is one-half plus 1

51 votes in the US Senate, 218 votes in the US House.

A "greater majority" is two-thirds

67 votes in the US Senate, 290 votes in the US House.

A "super majority" is three-quarters

75 votes in the US Senate, 327 votes in the US House.

(In general terms, any vote over 50% is called a "super majority" but, since the US Constitution has provisions for 50%, 67% and 75% votes, I will draw distinctions among the three.)

I'm absolutely cool with an exception for declared war, but for other exceptions, I don't think that a greater majority is enough, I don't think it is constitutionally moral. (Yes, "constitutionally moral" is a new concept; keep reading, I will explain it.)

We have all heard of congressional leaders and party officials and special interest groups begging, threatening, even bribing members of Congress to get votes to support their goals. If we get to a point where We, the People, require Congress to balance the budget, the fools who believe in deficit spending will descend on the District like the flies, lice, locusts, hail-fire and darkness descended on Pharaoh. They will beg, they will threaten, they will bribe.

[I'm using the term "bribe" loosely, of course. Whatever these special interests will offer will be strictly within the letter of the law, but anytime you say, "give me this and I'll give you that," it's morally a bribe, and I include campaign donations on that list.]

In short, I am convinced by history that when you require a 60% or 67% vote, Congress gets that vote more often than not – especially when they can invoke an "emergency" to scare the average American into calling his/her member of Congress to plead for protection from that emergency. Professional politicians can always create an emergency when they need one: Global warming, bird flu, swine flu, Iran, Libya, the home mortgage meltdown, almost every hurricane and many other situations are or were actual, declared national emergencies. Not one of them threatened the existence of the United States or the lives of large numbers US citizens, and the politicians knew it. The manipulations which politicians have palmed off on the American citizen are mind-boggling, and, if the balanced budget amendment passes, it will only get worse. 

A 75% override vote is a whole different level of politics. Even though I don't think the balanced budget amendment is the answer, requiring a super majority (75%) vote for override is, for me, an acceptable compromise because I think a greater majority (67%) vote for override is constitutionally immoral. (Okay, you've waited patiently, here's what I mean by that:)

The Constitution of the United States requires a super-majority of States to ratify an amendment.
If the US Congress is going to override the US Constitution and the will of the several States, it should be by that same super-majority.

You might think I'm going out of my way to make it difficult for Congress to engage in deficit spending. You would be right in that assumption. Since I can't make it impossible, I will simply have to settle for making it as difficult as possible.

Second, this proposal is missing an important protection.

Are you aware that twelve amendments were proposed as the Bill of Rights? It's true, the first two – limiting congressional representation and limiting congressional pay raises – were not ratified by the several States back in 1791. So, what? Well, the second proposed amendment is now the 27th Amendment. It was ratified in 1992 – 202 years 7 months and 12 days after proposal.

The 18th, 22nd, and 23rd Amendments included a clause, "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

This should be a standard, a given, a part of every proposal. Amendments should not be allowed to float around in the ether forever. Are you aware that the so-called Equal Rights Amendment had a 7-year limit on ratification and failed to get ratified within the 7 years? Are you aware that Congress became convinced it would fail (before the limit was reached) and extended the 7 years to 10 years? Are you aware that it still failed? The American people didn't want it, and giving it more time would not have changed that.

Did you know there are four amendments still floating out there that were passed by both chambers of Congress and sent to the states, but they will probably never be ratified?

This is bad policy. If you can't convince the States in a reasonable time, your chance of success is, well, once in 200 years thus far. For me, if it doesn’t work in 7 years, it won't; let's admit it and move on.

The Bottom Line

The current balanced budget amendment proposal is a good start, but passing it in its current form would be a mistake. If Congress would make these two small, but significant, modifications, I could get behind it.

And I don't think I'm the only one.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.