Our nation’s debt is out of control. We are currently $38.4 trillion in debt, which amounts to $288,000 per household in the United States. In this year alone, the federal government will collect $5.2 trillion from American taxpayers but spend $7 trillion. For decades, legislators and activists have considered various proposals to reel in the power-hungry politicians who keep throwing money at failing programs, forcing them to balance the nation’s books. One of these ideas is to pass a “Balanced Budget Amendment” (BBA) to force spending limits on the executive and legislative branches. However, questions remain as to whether a BBA could actually move politicians to become fiscally responsible, even though fiscal discipline is very much needed. But most concerning is the push by those who seek to open up our Constitution in order to pass a BBA, exposing it to wide-scale revision at a time when our nation is deeply divided.
Recently, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government debated the merits of the BBA. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX), a long proponent of the BBA, chaired the hearing titled Balancing the Federal Budget: Examining Proposals for a Balanced Budget Amendment. The arguments in favor of a BBA initially sounded intriguing. Eagle Forum has long put pressure on Congress to return to regular order and pass individual appropriations bills. This would force the federal legislature to carefully examine each program and agency and decide their merits. That has not happened in a long time. Even some of the Democrat talking points in the hearing helped the BBA sound more favorable by expressing concerns that certain programs may face cuts. We want to see cuts to bloated spending!
There was a healthy dose of skepticism from a fiscally conservative standpoint as well. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) explained that a BBA sounds good on the surface, but the exceptions can be problematic. He voted against a BBA several years ago that included a loophole allowing Congress to undo the BBA if 60% of Members in both chambers agreed to do so. Only a few days prior, Congress passed an Omnibus spending bill with over 60% agreement — enough Members to ignore a BBA if in place. He went on to explain that 11 of the 16 most recent continuing resolutions (CRs) both failed to cut spending levels AND were passed with over two-thirds votes in the House. Fourteen of the 16 passed in the Senate by 2/3 and also did not reduce spending. Rep. Roy made the point that Congress currently ignores spending caps by passing debt ceiling increases.
There is no doubt that Congress needs to balance the budget and get our fiscal house in order. What is concerning is that some proponents of the BBA are suggesting that an Article V Convention should be called to achieve the goal. Eagle Forum has always opposed calling an Article V Convention (sometimes called a Convention of States or COS) for many reasons. Phyllis Schlafly rightly pointed out decades ago that such a conclave, for which there is no precedent and therefore no governing rules “would throw confusion, uncertainty, and court cases around our governmental process by opening up our entire Constitution to be picked apart by special-interest groups that want various changes. It would make America look foolish in the eyes of the world, unsettle our financial markets, and force all of us to re-fight the same battles that the Founding Fathers so brilliantly won in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.”
For starters, Phyllis wrote that “States can send petitions asking Congress to call a convention, but only Congress can decide what petitions are effective to trigger calling a convention. Only Congress can decide how delegates would be elected or selected, how the voting power would be apportioned among the states, what rules would govern the convention, who would preside, and who would pay all the costs.”
This means if Congress were to call a Convention, the BBA backers would not be calling the shots. No matter their good intentions or lofty promises, they will not be able to control the language or amendments that come out of such a meeting. It is naïve to think that the Democratic Socialists, like the newly elected Mayor of New York City, will sit out such a convention.
While some Republicans mistakenly believe a COS is an appropriate option to get the BBA passed, Democrats have their own priorities they would seek to push on spending and other issues, too. They could try to offer amendments for government-run health care, welfare for illegals, as well as issues like the Equal Rights Amendment, a constitutional right to abortion, the overturn of the Electoral College, and environmental rights amendments. Glenn Beck, a former supporter of the COS, recently withdrew his support for this model because he fears that in this day and age, “we are not the people to open up this sacred document. . . [T]his Constitution is wholly inadequate for anyone other than a religious and moral people. We are not those people, and we should not stain this document,” and risk losing our God-inspired system of government.
Phyllis likened an Article V Convention to a game of Russian Roulette. She stated in 1987:
Despite the good odds, society labels it murder if you play such a risky game with life. Many of us feel it would be just as irrational to play such a risky game with the United States Constitution — our most precious document and the fountainhead of our unparalleled American freedom, independence, and prosperity.
The quest to eliminate the nation’s debt and return to a balanced budget is much like a narrative from Moby Dick. Are BBA proponents so determined to exact vengeance on our bloated deficit that they are willing to sink our Constitutional rights? A BBA is only ideal when all participants adhere to the rules and practice self-control. We may have little to agree with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) on, but he is not wrong when he says:
We don’t need a constitutional amendment to legislatively balance the budget; we just need some old-fashioned fiscal discipline.
The best way to achieve this is to elect principled, socially conservative, and fiscal conservatives to the U.S. House and Senate next November. Eagle Forum PAC has already begun the hunt for these candidates. We invite all candidates running for office to fill out our Candidate Questionnaire to be considered for an endorsement. If you are working for a campaign or think your candidate would be a great fit for an Eagle Forum PAC endorsement, please send them a link to our questionnaire.
Please consider a generous end-of-year donation to our Eagle Forum PAC to ensure that we can support candidates who will work to balance the budget, strengthen families, protect the unborn, and preserve our great U.S. Constitution.
