Balanced Budget Essay

Shelby McIntosh Balanced Budget Amendment I do not believe that within the next seven years the United States Constitution will be amended to require the national government to balance its budget each year. While I believe that a balanced budget is necessary in order to avoid potential political and economic crises, the party division in the two chambers of Congress as well as the difficulty of amending the Constitution, pose a major obstacle this nation faces in order to do so. “A Republican balanced-budget plan would require Congress to balance the federal budget each year, cap spending at 18 percent of the gross domestic product, require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to increase taxes and require a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers to raise the debt limit” (Lengell). This, however, would pose to quite a challenge in an ever changing legislative system. Democrats currently have an advantage in the Senate as they occupy 51 of the 100 seats in Senate (Party Division). Republicans, however, currently have the advantage in the House of Representatives holding 242 of the 435 seats (House History). The party division between each chamber of Congress is likely to lead to passage of an amendment in one chamber but not in the other. In 1995, The House of Representatives passed a balanced budget amendment, however the Senate failed to do so by one vote. Somewhat recently in March of 2010, the issue of a balanced budget amendment arose again. A bipartisan congressional caucus was assembled in order to discuss and question the possibility of a balanced budget amendment. Republican Colorado Representative Mike Coffman and Democratic Representative Jim Marshall initiated a bipartisan congressional caucus with the sole purpose of reviewing House Joint Resolution 1, the Balanced Budget Amendment. The caucus is committed to

educating the members of Congress on the necessity and importance of the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution (Beatty). The primary reason I do not believe the Constitution will be amended with a requirement for a balanced budget within the next seven years is due the difficulty of proposal and ratification as provided by the Constitution. More than 11,000 amendments to the Constitution have been considered, however only 33 of these 11,000 plus amendments have been submitted to the states. Of these 33 proposed amendments, only 27 have been ratified. The Constitution has remained very short as the founders only intended it to be a framework for the government they were creating. The brief wording left much up for interpretation by the succeeding governments and the Constitution has remained short due to the fact that the formal amending process does not allow changes to be made easily. In Article V of the Constitution, the ways in which an amendment can be proposed and ratified are outlined. In order to propose an amendment, there are two formal methods that can be taken. The first method requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress and the second method requires the request of a national convention of Congress by two-thirds of the state legislatures, which has never before been used. In order to ratify an amendment one of two methods can be carried out. First, there must be either a positive vote in three-fourths of the state legislatures, or second, a convention in the states with a positive vote by three-fourths of the states. The second method has been used once in our nation’s history, which leaves much of the amendment process up to the representatives in Congress. “Because of the competing social and economic interests, the requirement that two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve the amendments is difficult to achieve” (Schmidt et al. 58-59). Due to party division in the two chambers of Congress and the difficulty of proposing and ratifying an amendment to the Constitution, the likelihood of an amendment required a

balanced national budget is very slim. While I do believe a balanced budget is necessary to avoid future crises in our nation, the obstacles in the way of a balanced budget amendment pose a larger issue that must be addressed before ratification of the amendment is in the realm of possibility.

Works Cited Beatty, Warren. “Balanced Budget Amendment Pros and Cons.” Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . “House History.” Office of the Clerk: U.S. House of Representatives . N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . Lengell, Sean. “Amendments to balance budget facing hurdles .” The Washington Times 13 Dec. 2011: n. pag. The Washington Times. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . “Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present.” United States Senate. United States Senate, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . Schmidt, et al. American Government and Politics Today. N.p.: Wadsworth, 2011/‌2012. Print.

Cited: Beatty, Warren. “Balanced Budget Amendment Pros and Cons.” Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . “House History.” Office of the Clerk: U.S. House of Representatives . N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . Lengell, Sean. “Amendments to balance budget facing hurdles .” The Washington Times 13 Dec. 2011: n. pag. The Washington Times. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . “Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present.” United States Senate. United States Senate, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . Schmidt, et al. American Government and Politics Today. N.p.: Wadsworth, 2011/‌2012. Print.