Spokane7
61°
December 14, 2011 in Nation/World
Senate rejects two balanced budget amendments
WASHINGTON — The Senate today voted against changing the Constitution to require a balanced budget as Congress hit yet another dead end in its search for a way out of its fiscal morass.
Two proposals for balanced budget amendments were doomed by the partisanship that dominates Congress. All but one Republican voted against a Democratic measure, and every Democrat opposed the GOP-backed version. Amendments to the Constitution must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of state legislatures.
With the votes, Congress fulfilled a commitment to take up balanced budget amendments that were part of the agreement last summer to raise the government’s debt limit in exchange for $2 trillion in future spending cuts.
The House held its vote last month, falling 23 votes short of reaching the two-thirds majority.
Last month also marked the failure of the supercommittee, another product of the debt limit agreement, to come up with a course of action for making inroads into $1 trillion-a-year deficits and a national debt that has topped $15 billion.
Other efforts this year to “go big” on deficit reduction, including talks between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner and a bipartisan commission led by former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wy., and former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, also proved futile.
The inability of the 12-member bipartisan supercommittee to come up with a long-term deficit cutting plan reinforced the argument that only a balanced budget amendment could save Congress from its overspending habits.
“The only way that Congress will exercise the discipline to balance the budget is if the Constitution forces it to do so,” said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
But opponents, led by Democrats and including the White House, said a balanced budget requirement could lead to drastic cuts to social programs when a poor economy reduces federal revenues and that Congress could end up ceding budget decisions to unelected federal judges if lawmakers can’t agree over how to reach balance.
“I believe it would be a profound mistake for this country,” said Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. “I believe adopting this amendment would have and could have disastrous consequences for the economy and for the future strength of this nation.”
Democrats were particularly critical of the Republican plan, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that required a two-thirds majority of both chambers to raise taxes, three-fifths to raise the national debt, and stated that spending for any budget year could not exceed 18 percent of gross domestic product. Senate Budget Committee Democrats said federal spending hasn’t fallen below 18 percent of GDP since 1966.
Hatch replied that “the votes we cast today will tell the American people whether we honestly acknowledge the fiscal crisis posed by a $15 trillion national debt and whether we are serious” about finding a cure.” Congress “will not kick its overspending addiction alone,” he said. “Congress needs some help, and the Constitution is the way to get that help.”
The vote for the Hatch proposal was strictly along party lines, with 53 Democrats opposing it and 47 Republicans in support.
The vote for the Democratic measure, sponsored by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Col., was more lopsided, with only 20 Democrats and one Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, voting for it.
Udall said he hoped his proposal would raise awareness among his colleagues “about the very serious consequences of government spending without accountability.”
Udall’s approach differed from Hatch’s in that it had no caps on spending, did not require a supermajority to raise taxes, prohibited Social Security funds from being used to balance the rest of the budget and barred millionaires from getting tax cuts unless the budget was in surplus. Both provided for waivers in times of war and national emergencies.
While the president does not have a role in advancing constitutional amendments, the White House issued statements opposing both proposals. It said that instead of amending the Constitution members of both parties should “move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground to restore us to a sustainable fiscal path.” It also warned that an amendment could also result in the hard decisions lawmakers should be making being handed to the federal courts.
The Senate came within one vote of approving a balanced budget twice in the 1990s, but it hasn’t taken up the issue since the last vote in 1997.
Including the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times, the last time in 1992 with an amendment concerning congressional pay increases.
Forty-nine states — all but Vermont — have some form of balanced budget requirement. These generally apply only to operating budgets, allowing states to borrow for long-term capital investments. Cuts to the federal spending resulting from a balanced budget mandate could reduce federal grants to the states, making it harder for them to meet their budget goals.
The federal government has balanced its budget only six times in the past half-century, four times during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
DickAdams on December 14 at 12:30 p.m.
I believe it would be a profound mistake for this country,” said Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. “I believe adopting this amendment would have and could have disastrous consequences for the economy and for the future strength of this nation.” REALLY? MORONIC LOGIC, Mr. Conrad!!
If I tried to unbalance our family budget like the bozos in congress, no question, I`d be speaking to a divorce attorney. Not to worry though I would not be stupid as the idiots in DC. Only people that don`t give a rip and would likely face bankruptcy, with no attempt to balance their own budget concur with the idiots. Our country is in a nose dive financially and I think to a point of crashing our country into bankruptcy. IMO its immanent. These career politicians it seems (BOTH PARTIES) continue to rob our youth with a debt that can never be paid off. IMO, these political hacks have sold their souls to the highest bidder, with few exceptions.
PlanB on December 14 at 12:50 p.m.
Pointless noise. The republinutz need to spend time coming up with real solutions, rather than wasting time with amendments that won’t ever pass, that are unnecessary, that they would find a way to work around anyway, and that limits flexibility.
The_Seer on December 14 at 12:55 p.m.
dickedadams: Did/do you have a mortgage? Did you ever have a car loan? Buy furniture on credit? I’ll wager most of your adult life you had more annual liabilities than you had income. Most of us do. Expecting your government to operate differently is what constitutes moronic logic.
The world runs on credit. Don’t you know that?
Answer my questions contained in this post and try not to go on a rant about the Carnegie Library. Enough already.
Rod_Foss on December 14 at 1:14 p.m.
Seer: Everything you mentioned are your personal decisions about your personal possessions and involving your personal money for which you are personally responsible. The government has no money but what it takes from us and spends it without our advice or consent, gets in a hole, then uses the enforcement power of the state to demand and take more.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. DickAdams is right.
johnclarke on December 14 at 1:36 p.m.
“The only way that Congress will exercise the discipline to balance the budget is if the Constitution forces it to do so,” said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Or, we could just grow up and put taxes back to a historically successful rate. Yes, yes yes both parties are responsible but the Republicans live in an alternate universe that refuse to accept the painfully obvious. The concept of trickle down economic is a complete and total failure. Cutting taxes while increasing spending just did not seem to work out well, now did it? No administration, Democrat or Republican has EVER REDUCED THE SIZE AND SPENDING OF GOVERNMENT. I really wish politicians would stop repeating this nonsense like it is possible.
Revenue, that is the ticket.
IRun on December 14 at 2:58 p.m.
@Rod_Floss… “The government has no money but what it takes from us and spends it without our advice or consent, gets in a hole, then uses the enforcement power of the state to demand and take more.”
Um, Rod you do realize that we hold elections every November to elect representatives to Congress to make those decisions about taxation and spending. Your consent and advice is strictly provided by whom you vote for. If you do not like how your representative is representing you then I suggest either voting for someone else, encouraging others to for someone else or run yourself for office.
force_vector on December 14 at 4:16 p.m.
johnclarke - The problem with raising taxes is that they will be spent irresponsibly. I’m all for raising taxes if that’s what it takes to get our fiscal situation in order. The reality is though that any increase in taxes will just be spent on new stuff; new stuff we most likely don’t even need or even know about. When Washington shows it can be responsible with my money, then I’ll entertain the idea of giving them more.
johnclarke on December 14 at 4:30 p.m.
force_vector on December 14 at 4:16 p.m.
johnclarke - The problem with raising taxes is that they will be spent irresponsibly. I’m all for raising taxes if that’s what it takes to get our fiscal situation in order. The reality is though that any increase in taxes will just be spent on new stuff; new stuff we most likely don’t even need or even know about. When Washington shows it can be responsible with my money, then I’ll entertain the idea of giving them more.
Actually, the reality is they spent on the new stuff irresponsibly without paying for it. That is called the debt, you know the thing the Republicans are howling about? I have to chuckle when I hear them calling for a balanced budget amendment. Exactly who what when and where has a Republican ever balanced a budget?
Increase revenue, cut spending. Is it really that hard ?
ManleyPointer on December 14 at 4:58 p.m.
Yes, JC, it really IS that hard. For these politicians, in this corrupt system, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
johnclarke on December 14 at 5:12 p.m.
Oh I don’t know. Budgets have been balanced - but the very word speaks of cooperation. Something we seem short of these days.
force_vector on December 14 at 6:16 p.m.
“Increase revenue, cut spending.”
That is something I could get behind. Unfortunately, the more likely scenario is increase revenue, increase spending, keep debt level where it is. Pay interest on the debt, pretend to be cutting total debt by claiming to reduce waste and fraud by spending yet more tax money setting up a commission to study the matter. Oh, and that will be financed as well.
JC, we have a serious problem. Until our government starts to act like it, we are going to continue on our path to insolvency. But we cannot pretend that giving politicians more will accelerate that realization. If anything, it’ll only make it take longer.
misjustice on December 14 at 6:26 p.m.
Hmmmm, Congresscritters don’t need no stinkin’ Constitutional Amendment to “balance” the budget; just do it! Heck, in all the time spent flappin’ their jaws over this Amendment they could already have done it!
Less talk and MORE action is what is required here!
Besides that, how freakin’ long will it take for a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified? Most likely, if it is ratified at all, YEARS!