Proposed Constitutional Amendment Demands 2/3rds Vote for All New Taxes and Crisis Spending

This Joint Resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that fundamentally changes how the federal government handles its money. The core idea is simple: the government must run a balanced budget, and it must do so by capping total spending each year. This cap is set by calculating the average revenue the government collected over the previous three years, then adjusting that number for inflation and population growth. Spending to pay down the national debt is exempt from this limit, but everything else—from military salaries to infrastructure projects—is included. If ratified, this new fiscal reality would kick in five years after adoption.

The New Math of Federal Spending

Think of this like trying to run your household budget based on the average income you made in the last three years. If the economy hits a rough patch, or a new crisis pops up, you can’t just spend what you need; you’re stuck with that historical average. The bill mandates that Congress can only exceed this new spending limit if two-thirds of the members in both the House and Senate vote yes on a roll call. The only exception to this supermajority rule is during a formally declared war, which allows Congress to spend what it deems necessary without the two-thirds hurdle. This means responding to a major recession, a pandemic, or a massive natural disaster would require finding that two-thirds consensus, a very high bar.

The Supermajority Tax Lock

Perhaps the biggest structural shift in the resolution is the requirement for raising revenue. Under the current system, tax bills usually pass with a simple majority (50% plus one). This amendment changes that dramatically: any bill that creates a new tax or increases the rate of an existing tax must be approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the full membership of each House of Congress. For everyday people, this means that even if a majority of the country agrees that a new tax is needed—say, to fund universal pre-K or fix aging highways—a minority bloc of just over one-third of Congress could permanently block it. This effectively gives a significant veto power to a minority on all future revenue decisions.

Real-World Gridlock vs. Fiscal Discipline

On one hand, supporters of this approach would argue it forces fiscal discipline and prevents the national debt from spiraling further out of control. It demands that Congress prioritize spending and find broad consensus before making big moves. That sounds good on paper. On the other hand, this level of restriction could paralyze the government’s ability to function. Consider a major economic downturn: typically, the government increases spending (unemployment benefits, stimulus checks) and sometimes cuts taxes to stabilize the economy. Under this amendment, increasing spending would require a two-thirds vote, and raising taxes to pay for it later would also require a two-thirds vote. This makes rapid, necessary policy adjustments nearly impossible, potentially lengthening or deepening economic crises. For agencies reliant on discretionary funding—from scientific research to veterans’ services—the spending cap means intense competition for a fixed, historically determined pot of money, making it much harder to fund new initiatives or keep up with rising service demands.