Thursday night, the House failed to pass House Joint Resolution 2, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The resolution failed to get two-thirds of the House’s support to pass, with 233 in favor and 184 against. Seven Democrats voted in favor, and six Republicans voting against.
Ironically, exactly three weeks earlier, the House was miraculously able to find the votes to pass a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus package, increasing spending for all departments of the federal government. What’s funny is that members of Congress are trying to convince their constituents they are the fiscal conservatives they campaigned as, yet doing the exact opposite.
Many different versions of the balanced budget amendment have been proposed, but the BBA voted on Thursday night was authored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and required that total outlays would not exceed total receipts by the federal government in any given year. It would require three-fifths of both the House and Senate to approve any budgets that do not meet this criteria. In addition, Congress could waive these rules if the United States is engaged in a military conflict that poses a serious threat.
Experts have already pointed out the issues with the language in this legislation, notably that waiving this rule has often been done in the past and that our current overseas engagements would likely fit the criteria necessary to once again increase deficits.
While political commentators will argue the merits of the BBA that failed on the floor, Republicans are simply trying to save face with much of their base. With Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announcing retirement earlier this week, things are not looking nearly as optimistic for them in November. By voting on a BBA, members can go back to their districts and claim they tried to do something about the debt and deficit, no matter how phony it may be.
While there are other viable options for curbing the growth of spending around the world, the Swiss Debt Brake is the most successful one that comes to mind. It’s absolutely apparent that the United States needs a strong spending deterrent whose rules cannot be waived with a simple vote. Congress was right to vote on a BBA, flawed as it is, but actions speak louder than words. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, introduced the Maximizing America’s Prosperity (MAP) Act and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., introduced the Commitment to American Prosperity (CAP) Act, and both bills create strict caps on spending. There are pros and cons to both pieces of legislation, but it is clear that solutions do currently exist.
The Congressional Budget Office released their updated The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018-2028 this week, coming at the perfect time between a massive spending package in March and this week’s balanced budget amendment vote. CBO projects that the growth in outlays will vastly outpace that of revenues, increasing the debt more than the already $21 trillion it is at now. This will lead to trillion dollar deficits in 2020 and eventually, the federal debt held by the public will be nearly 100 percent of GDP. A more telling number, the gross debt, has already passed that 100 percent threshold, years ago.
There are still a few fiscal conservatives in Congress fighting the good fight. Those that voted for both the expensive and irresponsible spending deal as well as the balanced budget amendment do not fit in that category. It’s easy to see through the hypocrisy of voting for trillion dollar legislation while advocating the opposite.
The BBA vote, the first since 2011, was a step in the right direction. But it will take more than a half-hearted vote to address the growth of spending and debt. Real reforms, whether on the discretionary or mandatory side, must be on the table.
Jake Grant (@thejakegrant) is a Young Voices Advocate and outreach director for the Coalition to Reduce Spending. The views expressed here are his own.
