To his supporters, President Obama will always be remembered as the hero who saved the United States from the “Great Recession” of 2008. But in his pursuit to rescue the nation from severe economic difficulties, Obama may have set the country on an irreversible path toward economic ruin. During his time in office, Obama added about $10 trillion to the federal debt, about as much as every other president in the history of the country — combined.
This startling figure has been deemed by many as necessary to keep the country afloat, including the very same Democrats who once railed against President George W. Bush for large budget deficits. But the numbers simply don’t add up.
From 2009 through 2015, the portion of the population living below the poverty line averaged 14.6 percent, the worst mark of any presidency since the 1960s. Although the number of families in poverty (nearly 29.9 million) is lower now than it was at the height of the recession, there are still more families in poverty (as of 2015, the most recent year data are available) than in any year during Bush’s presidency.
Despite spending trillions of dollars beyond what the country collects in tax revenue, Obama completely failed to solve the one problem he pledged repeatedly would be the focus of his administration: poverty. Had Obama simply sent $5 trillion, half of the debt added under his administration, to every impoverished family in the country during his time in office, he could have given each family more than $150,000, enough money to buy each of them a fully-furnished house. Instead, Obama recklessly spent trillions of dollars, indebting future generations to countless foreign nations and putting our entire financial system at risk.
In fairness to Obama, Bush also spent trillions more than he should have. Also, Congress ultimately has the power to control spending, not the president. Any honest analysis of the country’s fiscal policies can only conclude one way: The Washington ruling class, on both sides of the aisle, have foolishly and irresponsibly spent taxpayers’ money over the past several decades, putting the country at risk.
While it’s possible President-elect Trump’s administration and the Republican-led Congress could right the ship by drastically cutting spending and implementing pro-growth economic policies, the only safe long-term solution to Washington’s addiction to debt is substantial spending reform: the kind that can only be accomplished through the passage of a constitutional amendment.
Because it would be virtually impossible to get two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to agree to severe spending restraints, state legislatures across the country have been working to create a constitutional amendments convention using the process outlined in Article V of the Constitution. If two-thirds of the state legislatures, 34 states, submit applications for a convention, Congress is required to call one. Twenty-eight legislatures have already submitted applications to create a balanced budget amendment, and because 33 state legislatures are now run by the Republican Party, it’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that an amendments convention could be called within the next two years.
If a balanced budget amendment is approved at an amendments convention, 38 states would have to ratify the proposed amendment for it to become law.
Opponents of a balanced budget amendment argue that it puts the country in danger because it limits what the government can do in times of crisis, but such a position is completely without merit. Any amendment passed would almost certainly contain language that would allow for exceptions in moments of crisis, such as a massive war. As the wealthiest nation in the world, the U.S. can and should be building up budget reserves for natural disasters, wars and other crises, just as millions of American families must do with their own household budgets each year.
There is no logical reason why the U.S. shouldn’t have a balanced budget requirement, especially when nearly every state government has either a law or a state constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget already on the books. If it’s good enough for American households and most states, it should be imperative for the federal government.
Although there has been talk of a balanced budget amendment for decades, this is the closest the country has ever been to actually passing one into law, and it couldn’t come at a better time. The U.S. is in desperate need of common-sense restraints on federal spending. If our state legislators don’t act now, the opportunity for real reform may not come again in our lifetimes.
Justin Haskins is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an executive editor at The Heartland Institute. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
