This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced federal budget, limit government spending to 18% of GDP, and require supermajority votes to raise taxes or increase the debt limit, with exceptions for declared war or serious national security threats.
Vern Buchanan
Representative
FL-16
This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced federal budget, limit government spending to 18% of GDP, and require supermajority votes to raise taxes or increase the debt limit. It includes exceptions for declared wars or serious military threats and prevents courts from ordering tax increases to enforce the amendment. The amendment would take effect five years after ratification, giving congress time to create legislation to enforce the amendment.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Mandates Balanced Budget, Caps Spending at 18% of GDP: Implementation Five Years Post-Ratification
A new proposed constitutional amendment wants to put the federal government on a strict diet, forcing a balanced budget and capping spending. Here's the deal, straight up.
The Budget Straitjacket
This amendment, if ratified, would make it so the government can't spend more than it makes in any given year. No more running up the credit card unless two-thirds of both the House and Senate agree on a specific amount of overspending. It also limits total government spending to 18% of the previous year's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – basically, the total value of all the stuff the U.S. makes and does. Again, only a two-thirds vote in Congress can raise that ceiling.
Think of it like this: if your household income was $100,000, this amendment would limit your spending to $18,000, no matter what emergencies pop up, unless a supermajority of your family (if your family were Congress) agreed to spend more. For a trade worker, sudden material cost increases could be a problem, and it is the same here, as this amendment has no stated mechanism for handling sudden cost increases.
Tax Hike Hurdles and Debt Ceiling Drama
Raising taxes? That's going to need a two-thirds thumbs-up from Congress too, under this amendment. Increasing the debt limit? A three-fifths majority is required. These supermajority requirements could make it a lot harder to make big financial moves, even if everyone agrees they're needed. Section 4 spells out the tax rules, and Section 5 lays down the debt limit law.
War and Emergency Exceptions (With Fine Print)
There are escape hatches for wartime or if there is a serious military threat to national security. A declared war against another country allows Congress to waive the spending and debt limits with a simple majority vote, approving a specific amount of extra spending (Section 6). A "serious threat" requires a three-fifths vote declaring the threat and approving the extra spending linked to it (Section 7). The catch? What counts as "serious" is open to interpretation, and there is no stated mechanism for independent review of such a claim.
No Court-Ordered Tax Hikes
Section 8 makes it clear: no court in the U.S. can order a tax increase to make the budget balance. So, even if the government is breaking the rules of this amendment, a judge can't step in and force a tax hike to fix it. This is a pretty unique rule, and it is unclear what would happen if the government simply refused to comply.
The Bottom Line
This amendment, effective five years after ratification (Section 11), aims for serious fiscal discipline, but it could also tie the government's hands in a crisis. The reliance on GDP estimates (Section 10) could also lead to some creative accounting. It’s like forcing the government to wear a financial straitjacket – it might prevent some reckless spending, but it could also make it impossible to move when you really need to. While some might see benefits in lower taxes and reduced debt, the rigid rules could backfire, making it harder to respond to economic downturns or invest in crucial areas. The definition of 'military conflict that poses a serious threat to national security' is vague, and the two-thirds majority requirement for raising taxes could create political gridlock.