Government

House Rejects Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal

House Rejects Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal

Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) proposed the balanced budget amendment that was rejected by the House of Representatives Friday. (Image source: AP)

The U.S. House of Representatives rejected a proposal Friday to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, seen by many as the only way to force lawmakers to hold the fiscal line and reverse the flow of federal red ink.

The 261-165 vote, though a clear majority, was 23 votes short of the two-thirds required to advance a constitutional amendment. Democrats voted overwhelmingly against it, apparently swayed by the arguments of their leaders that a balanced budget requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs.

Four Republicans joined the Democrats in opposing the measure: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas.).

It was the first House vote on a balanced budget amendment in 16 years, and came as the separate bipartisan supercommittee appears to be struggling in its attempt to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade by Nov. 23.

With the national debt now topping $15 trillion and the deficit for the just-ended fiscal year passing $1 trillion, supporters of the amendment declared it the only way to stop out-of-control spending. The government now must borrow 36 cents for every dollar it spends.

“It is our last line of defense against Congress’ unending desire to overspend and overtax,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said as the House debated the measure.

But Democratic leaders worked aggressively to defeat it, saying that such a requirement could force Congress to cut billions from social programs during times of economic downturn and that disputes over what to cut could result in Congress ceding its power of the purse to the courts.

Even had it passed, the measure would have faced an uphill fight in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Dreier, a 16-term congressman, broke ranks with his fellow Republicans to speak against the measure. He said lawmakers should be able to find common ground on deficit reduction without changing the Constitution, and expressed concern that lawsuits filed when Congress fails to balance the budget could result in courts making decisions on cutting spending or raising taxes.

Ryan said he was worried the version of the amendment could pave the way for more taxes, instead of reducing spending, to balance the budget, The Hill reported.

“Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished,” Ryan said. “Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this amendment.”

The House passed a similar measure in 1995, with the help of 72 Democrats. That year, the measure fell one vote short of passing the Senate. This year, only 25 Democrats supported the proposal.

Constitutional amendments must get two-thirds majorities in both houses and be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The last constitutional amendment ratified, in 1992, dealt with lawmaker pay increases.

The second-ranking Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, voted for the amendment in 1995 but said the situation has vastly changed since then. “Republicans have been fiscally reckless,” he asserted, saying the George W. Bush administration would not cut spending elsewhere to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, major tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

“A constitutional amendment is not a path to a balanced budget,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas). “It is only an excuse for members of this body failing to cast votes to achieve one.”

Conservatives had pressed for a tougher version of the amendment that would have also set tight caps on annual spending and required a supermajority to raise taxes.

The measure on the floor Friday, sponsored by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) mirrored the 1995 resolution in stating that federal spending cannot exceed revenues in any one year. It would require a three-fifths majority to raise the debt ceiling or waive the balanced budget requirement in any year. But Congress would be able to let the budget go into deficit with a simple majority if there was a serious military conflict.

The Republicans’ hope was that the Goodlatte version would attract more Democratic supporters, and the “Blue Dogs,” a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, said they were on board. But there are now only 25 Blue Dogs, half the number of several years ago when there were more moderate Democrats, mainly from rural areas, in the House.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat who is not a Blue Dog member, said he was supporting the amendment because “there’s an infinite capacity in this Congress to kick the can down the road. … We are going to have to force people to make tough decisions.”

But other Democrats pointed to a letter from some 275 labor and other mostly liberal groups saying that forcing spending cuts or higher taxes to balance the budget when the economy was slow “would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing downturn, costing large numbers of jobs.”

Democrats also cited a report by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimating that, if there is not an increase in revenues, the amendment could force Congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3 percent by 2018.

The amendment would not have gone into effect until 2017, or two years after it was ratified, and supporters said that would give Congress time to avoid dramatic spending cuts.

Forty-nine states have some sort of balanced budget requirement, although opponents note that states do not have national security and defense costs. States also can still borrow for their capital-spending budgets for long-term infrastructure projects.

The federal government has balanced its budget only six times in the past half-century, four times during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments (89)

1 2 3
  • deerjerkydave
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:35pm

    These politicians will only let go of their money and power if it’s from their cold dead fingers. I believe they would let the U.S. economy collapse before giving up their power. It definitely seems like we’re headed in that direction. Without a voter initiative at the Federal level there is little accountability by these politicians. All we can do is keep up the Tea Party movement and vote out progressives as best we can in both parties.

    Report Post » deerjerkydave  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:22pm

      They don‘t need an Amendment to the Constitution for the budget or any other stinking thing they don’t have the good graces to do. The American People reserve the right to Amend the government if they don’t do their darn jobs.

      Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:24pm

      They are letting it collapse, but not before they take care of themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • escape_from_socialism
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:28pm

      This vote was a joke.
      Boehner already sold us to his brothers, progresives when agree to rise debt ceiling.

      Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:38pm

      if they put the balanced budget in the Constitution they will abuse it more. Has the Second Amendment kept them from regulating on it, or any other Amendment. Put in a Budget Amendment and they will work it against the American People.

      Report Post »  
    • motonutt
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:47pm

      I would hope that these four RINO’s will be sent packing the next time they are up for reelection.

      Report Post » motonutt  
    • Amma K
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 6:01pm

      I don’t know about the other 3, but Paul Ryan is not a RINO. I do want to find out his thinking behind his no vote though.

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:35pm

      You people Still don’t get it.
      Forget about the politicians, They are a distraction.
      In 1913 the federal reserve act was passed.
      in 1933 America declared bankruptcy.
      FDR pledged US citizens as collateral to the Federal Reserve ( A private bank no more federal than Federal express )
      Birth certificates became law in all states in 1933 and social security became law in 1936, under agreement with the federal reserve to track, and garner wages of it’s collateral (you).
      Your birth certificate # is owned by someone, and is a securities exchange # on the stock market.
      The Federal Reserve Private Bank is owned by the global elite.
      The receivers of the bankruptcy ( Global elite ) now run the U.S. as a corporation.
      You are considered a human resource, expected to earn 1 million in your lifetime, and pay a percentage of that to the world banks IRS > IMF > Vatican.
      The Secretary of the Treasury is a Fed-Appointed manager to oversee our Bankruptcy.
      He proposes loan packages to our “Government”.
      we have been bankrupt since 1933 and any dime our “government” spends is loaned w/ interest money.
      Your tax dollars are paying the interest on previous loans while our “government” borrows more.
      The greatest Ponzi-Scheme in history.
      The only way to get out of this is to go to a silver based currency that is printed by our treasury.
      JFK signed executive order # 11110 which was exactly what I said above, and was assassinated
      5 months later.
      Obama and Bush W. are Cousins.
      Do

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • navypop
      Posted on November 20, 2011 at 7:30pm

      we balance our budget every month here at the house . Why sould the Great leaders of this country not do the same. Why are they even voting on something should not even be in question.

      Report Post »  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:26pm

    A Progressive Establishment Win!

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
    • mtcountrygrl
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:14pm

      This was a bad ammendment. It did not cap spending as a precent of GDP, all it said was the budget had to be balanced. You get a progressive like Obama in there spending like crazy and all he has to say is “now we have to raise revenue to offset this spending because the Constitution requires me to balance the budget”. Boom taxes go WAY up. It needs to read, the budget must be balanced and cannot exceed X% of GDP.

      Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:24pm

    Democrats voted overwhelmingly against it, apparently swayed by the arguments of their leaders that a balanced budget requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs.

    Four Republicans joined the Democrats in opposing the measure: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas.).

    __________________________________________________________________________________
    These people are part of the group that will put us under!

    Report Post »  
    • DRSAVAGE24
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:34pm

      Louie Gohmert and Justin Amash are great representatives. Paul Ryan has helped expand government in the past, but I can understand their reasoning here. What good is a balanced budget amendment if there is no cap on spending? All a BBA would do with no spending caps is by law require congress to jack up our taxes to match the spending. I can see both sides of it. I can see voting for the amendment because even with no spending caps, congress would have a lot of pressure on it to not raise taxes and would be forced to cut spending. However, I see the other side that congress will decide to continue the spending spree and just jack up all our taxes over our objections.

      I’d like to know who the 23 Dems are who voted for it. To me the only bad people in this situation are the Democrats who voted against it just because they don’t want to cut any spending. Based on the names of the Republicans who voted ‘no’, I believe they had a principled reason to vote against it and it had nothing to do with not wanting to cut spending.

      Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:38pm

      Indeed.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • antiencenom
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:07pm

      Thank you Dr Savage mu thoughts exactly

      Report Post » antiencenom  
    • antiencenom
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:17pm

      Oh sorry MY thoughts exactly Duhhh

      Report Post » antiencenom  
    • mtcountrygrl
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:22pm

      This was a bad ammendment. It did not cap spending as a precent of GDP, all it said was the budget had to be balanced. You get a progressive like Obama in there spending like crazy and all he has to say is “now we have to raise revenue to offset this spending because the Constitution requires me to balance the budget”. Boom taxes go WAY up. It needs to read, the budget must be balanced and cannot exceed X% of GDP

      Report Post »  
  • Maxim Crux
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:20pm

    a balanced budget means they would have a harder time stealing our money

    Report Post »  
    • Brad from Texas
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:39pm

      Apologies, but wrong. Paul is right. The way this amendment was written it would have simply given them the right to raise taxes on an unlimited basis. This whole vote was a sham. They knew it wouldn’t pass and repubs. wanted to look like they wanted a balanced budget.

      Report Post »  
  • steveh931
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:20pm

    Every Senator and every Representative should be sent home without pay until after the 2012 elections. Come on home boys and girls and let your constituents have a little talk with you face to face. Don’t forget your bags, you may need them!

    Report Post » steveh931  
  • Dano_3279
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:19pm

    Both parties are not showing leadership in this situation. and Paul Ryan is not stupid he didn’t vote for it because it does not cap spending and that much in cuts does nothing with the spending at the moment of the Fed Gov.

    Report Post » Dano_3279  
  • SavingtheRepublic.com
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:17pm

    ~^~v~~^~~v~^~
    If these “people” care so much for this country they would do the things necessary to save it. They are acting for their own personal political interests. No one should be surprised this got shot down they love to spend YOUR money. Keep that in mind this is YOUR money they are playing with… and what do you do America you keep feeding it to them. Conservatives, 9/12, TEA Party groups you better get your act together and start mobilizing the left is way ahead. Im not talking about a march Im talking about looking into ways to cut the flow of money off to them. IT CAN BE DONE. Question you all need to ask yourselves is what are you prepared to do?

    I bet those Occupy dopes could organize some type of anti-tax movement real quick. If I were you I wouldnt sit back waiting to see what they do… although I know many are too busy with football, The Real Housewives of _, what the Kardashians are up to, scheduling tee time etc. is more important. DC clearly needs another shot fired across its bow, will it be by the 9/12′rs TEA Party & conservatives or Occupy and recipients of Soros money. Who ever does it will control the direction of this nation. http://SavingtheRepublic.com

    Report Post » SavingtheRepublic.com  
    • KENYAN_WRECKING_BALL
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 6:53pm

      Saving,

      The Feds are doing a pretty good job of destroying the private sector and tax receipts to the treasury on their own. So many people under-employed and unemployed. Makes no sense to me. If I make my living as a bank robber I wouldn’t enact legislation that closes all the banks. There has to be something else up their sleeve.

      Report Post »  
  • Dismayed Veteran
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:14pm

    Paul Ryan is no longer a Republican golden boy. Vote him out of office. He has been advanced as a future Presidential candidate. He has already lost my vote.

    Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:21pm

      How about they just make a budget and stick to it…Fire all these worthless pieces of crap. They do not deserve their pay check

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • True American66
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:43pm

      Did you read the article?….there was NO CAP on spending….go back and read his reasoning before you jump to conclusions

      Report Post »  
    • ALPHA18BRAVO
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:57pm

      Paul Ryan is in support of balancing the budget , just not this proposal. Remember when the House passed H.R 2560? That bill was known as the “Cut cap and balance” plan. It included a balanced budget amendment. Paul Ryan Supported this bill when it passed. He stated,

      “The House of Representatives continues to advance serious solutions to get our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. The Cut, Cap and Balance legislation passed today cuts $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, locks in those savings with enforceable caps on spending, and forces Washington to finally live within its means with a Balanced Budget Amendment.”

      The senate never passed the bill and President Obama threatened to veto it if it passed the senate.
      Mr. Ryan continues to be one of the only individuals devoted to actually cutting spending and balancing the budget WITHOUT raising taxes.

      Report Post »  
  • CALABASH72
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:13pm

    You can clearly see we are on the same path as Greece. How much longer will the 49% who pay taxes keep working for the 51% who pay nothing. We are in for a shock if we don’t do something next november. Vote out the Democrats and the fake republican and vote in business people who will make the hard cuts and then tell the lazy american porch sitters to get up and get to work.

    Report Post »  
  • 50BMG
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:13pm

    The Ryan objections aside, Congress will never vote in sufficient numbers to put a leash on themselves. If the people don’t do it by forcing a Constitutional Convention, then we have no hope of every controlling spending. Except that someday, the people and nations lending us the 36 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government will decide that we’re no longer a safe enough borrower (can you say “Greece” or “Italy” or “Spain” or “Portugal”?) and the inflow will dry up.

    If we don’t have the wisdom and maturity to live within our means (and we don’t), others will force it upon us, and the pain and suffering here will be much greater than if we’d done it ourselves. So be it.

    Report Post » 50BMG  
    • ollie42
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:28pm

      @50BMG Although I would agree that some changes to the Constitution are needed, like term limits, a Constitutional Convention opens a can of worms. A Convention opens the whole Constitution to ammendment, you can’t limit it to only one area. Would you be willing to let this bunch of progressive boneheads have a free shot at the 2nd Ammendment, I think not. We just need to get this bunch out of there and put real people in charge again. Unfortunately there are too many people that will not give up their Govt. Teat to make that happen.

      Report Post »  
    • Kona HI
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:51pm

      38 states would have to call for a constitutional convention for one to convene. Prior to reaching that number Congress would pass a balanced budget amendment to head off the convention. That’s probably the only way this is going to get done.

      Report Post »  
  • NHABE64
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:12pm

    Its obvious we have some RINO’s in the group (Republicans in Name Only). Is it election time yet ? Pack your bags you weak minded and weak hearted cowards, 2012 is coming and you will be GOING!

    Report Post »  
  • Dano_3279
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:10pm

    Paul is willing to do what it takes but this Bill is a Ruse. it will do nothing to cut spending like we have too. and if spending stays how its been past couple years will will spend 50 trillion in 10 yrs. and we have over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities as well. so Cutting 1.3 trillion in 10 years will not even make a dent in the debt. it does nothing at all. with a 15 trillion dollar debt whats 1 trillion do if your Yearly dept is over 1 trillion.

    Report Post » Dano_3279  
  • Depressed_American
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:10pm

    They need to list the names of EVERYONE who voted against this bill (I think it is available on CSPAN). When the United States of America has SPENT itself into oblivion, then the DEMOCRATS have no one to blame but themselves. DEMOCRATS WAKE UP!!! YOU CAN‘T KEEP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON’T HAVE!!!! WE, The People, are watching, and we will remember this day come November 2012!!!! November 2010 was a cake walk compared to the thrashing you are going to get come November 2012!!!!!!

    Report Post » Depressed_American  
  • I.Gaspar
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:59pm

    Paul Ryan was correct. Unless they cap spending a balanced budget amendment would accomplish nothing and potentially only make matters worse.
    If the “99%ers” want to protest anything, they should protest big government spenders on both sides of the aisle…or all move into harry reid and nancy pelosi’s homes.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:57pm

      Spending is not the issue, jobs are. SInce the corporation and 1% are hoarding cash, it falls on the goverment through public works programs to get cash into the system. Teh GOP only cares about more tax cuts for the 1%, the middle class and the rest of the nation don’t matter to them, unless they need your votes, then it is meaningless culture issues to blind the conservatives.

      Report Post »  
    • Depressed_American
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 2:53pm

      encinom:
      How can you honestly say Spending is not the issue when this government has put this country 15 TRILLION Dollars in DEBT!!!.. The government has spent more money that it brings in in Taxes. You can tax the 1% and ALL the corporations in this country at a 100% tax rate and it will not even put a dent in the financial hole the government has sunk this country in. By the way there are 45 to 50 percent of the people in this nation who DON’T PAT ANY TAXES!!! I think if EVERYBODY paid their fair share our financial problems could be fixed.

      And how do you propose setting up Government work programs, the more people who lose their Private Sector jobs, the government gets less tax revenue. We are in a death spiral if the governement does not free up the corporations, and businesses from over regulation and over taxing.

      I am not an econimist or a accountant, but anybody with common sense can see the mess we are in, and see the causes of this mess.

      Report Post » Depressed_American  
  • pizzatruth
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:59pm

    How could you not vote for a bill that only allows us to spend money we have.
    The government now must borrow 36 cents for every dollar it spends.

    Partisan? Of course, same people who voted no, voted yes in 1995

    https://www.facebook.com/pizzatruth

    Report Post » pizzatruth  
  • MIlitary Nurse
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:58pm

    All a BBA will do is cause taxes to go UP! Due to a Constitutional Amendment we would have to PAY them. Sorry, a BBA is not the fix.

    Report Post » MIlitary Nurse  
  • alienguns
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:52pm

    Spineless critters of Washington–I consider them all traitors

    Report Post » alienguns  
  • HKS
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:52pm

    Just put important stuff on the ballot. Politicians have to many other agendas to deal with important issues. Let’s make this simple and save a lot of money doing it.

    Report Post » HKS  
  • jakartaman
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:49pm

    Put all the names who voted no on a list and lets get it out there for the election.

    Report Post »  
  • Sy Kosys
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:48pm

    QUICK!

    How many lib-tards are gonna blame the scant and literal handful of (R)s for not getting this passed, and not a peep about the vast majority of Spendocrats that voted Nay?

    CUT
    SPENDING

    NOW!!!!

    Report Post » Sy Kosys  
  • Blackhawk1
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:47pm

    The federal government has balanced its budget only six times in the past half-century, four times during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Thanks to the Republican run Congress after 1995.

    Report Post » Blackhawk1  
  • ElaineA
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:46pm

    P.Ryan and J. Amash voted with the Demmies AGAINST the amendment??????????

    I want to hear the explanation ….

    Report Post » ElaineA  
  • smithclar3nc3
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:45pm

    Four Republicans joined the Democrats in opposing the measure: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas
    REMEBER THE NAMES NEXT NOVEMEBER IT’S SEEM REALLY CLEAR WHO AND WHOSE NOT WILLING TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO SAVE THE AMERICA

    Report Post »  
    • True American66
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:46pm

      Read the article….

      Report Post »  
    • buyamerican
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 12:51am

      Ryan said he was worried the version of the amendment could pave the way for more taxes, instead of reducing spending, to balance the budget, The Hill reported.

      “Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished,” Ryan said. “Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this amendment.”

      Report Post »  
  • BrerRabbit
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:44pm

    Cut, dammit, CUT!

    Report Post »  
  • pamela kay
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:44pm

    Again, no surprise, why would they want to do that? It is against their progressive agenda.

    Report Post » pamela kay  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love