McConnell: All 47 GOP Senators Co-Sponsor New Balanced Budget Amendment

by Emily Miller 03/31/2011

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) announced Thursday afternoon that all 47 Republican Senators have co-sponsored a “consensus Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” HUMAN EVENTS learned exclusively. This year’s budget deficit is projected to be $1.6 trillion, and the national debt is currently $14.1 trillion.

The key provisions of the new balanced budget amendment (BBA) are: Congress must pass a balanced budget; the President has to submit a balanced budget; spending is capped at 18% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP); “supermajority” vote (two-thirds of House and Senate) to raise taxes; and “new supermajority” vote (three-fifths of House and Senate) to raise the debt ceiling.

“We’ve been fighting to cut spending in the near-term and that’s why we’ll soon be proposing a balanced budget amendment. American families have to balance their budgets. So should their elected representatives in Washington. It’s not too much to expect that lawmakers spend no more than they take in,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday morning.

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, amendments require passage by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratification by three-quarters (38) of the states. The House passed a BBA in 1995. In 1997, a Senate BBA failed to pass by only one vote. The 1997 BBA was supported by 11 Democrats, four of whom are still in the Senate: Max Baucus (Mont.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Herb Kohl (Wisc.), and Mary Landrieu (La.).

Senate Republicans have been divided for months between two different versions of the BBA, one co-sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah) and John Cornyn (Texas) and the other co-sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Mike Lee (Utah). There were 33 Republicans who supported the Hatch-Cornyn amendment, and 17 supported an amendment by Lee and Kyl. Other Senators had specific concerns about provisions in both versions of the BBA.

Two weeks ago, Senators Hatch, Cornyn, Lee, Kyl, and Pat Toomey (Penn.) announced a press conference to unveil their versions of the BBA. McConnell told them to call off the press conference until they had a united Republican conference in support of one final piece of legislation.

Then, McConnell asked the principals in the BBA debate to go back and negotiate a unified version that took into account all the requests from members of the caucus. The final version which they are announced on Thursday is co-sponsored by every Senate Republican.

The specific provisions of the consensus Senate BBA were obtained exclusively by HUMAN EVENTS. They are as follows:

1) Presidential Requirement to Submit a Balanced Budget: Prior to each fiscal year, the President must transmit to Congress a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP.

2) Requirement to Pass a Balanced Budget: With the following limited exceptions, Congress must pass a balanced budget.

* Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific deficit for a fiscal year.

* Requires a majority of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a declared war.

* Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the deficit must be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

3) 18 Percent Spending Cap: With the following limited exceptions, Congress must limit outlays to 18 percent of GDP.

* Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year.

* Requires a majority of Congress for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year during a declared war.

* Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the excess be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

4) Supermajority for Tax Increases: Establishes a new supermajority requirement for net tax and rate increases.

* Requires 2/3 of both Houses for any bill “that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue.”

* Excludes increases in revenue resulting from tax cuts.

5) Supermajority to Raise the Debt Limit: Establishes a new supermajority requirement for an increase in the debt limit.

* Requires 3/5 of both Houses to increase the debt limit.

* Requires a majority of Congress for a fiscal year during a declared war.

6) Congressional Enforcement and Use of Estimates: Provides for congressional enforcement and the use of estimates.

7) Limits on Courts: Prohibits courts from ordering revenue increases to enforce.

8) Effective Date: Becomes effective the fifth fiscal year after ratification.

The Republicans need 20 Democrats to reach the 67 vote threshold for passage. But, McConnell said Thursday morning on the Senate floor that, “Democrats are already lining up against it.” The Senate voted on a non-binding amendment for a BBA, sponsored by Lee that got a vote of 58-40, picking up 11 Democrat votes. If that test vote would be an accurate measure for vote counting, then only nine more Democrats are needed to pass a BBA this year.

Outside the U.S. Captiol on Thursday, members of the Tea Party protested against excessive government spending by Congress. Leader McConnell went to the Senate floor to defend against attacks on the Tea Party this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-N.V.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.).

“At a time when the national debt has reached crisis levels, members of the Tea Party are asking that we stop spending more than we take in. In other words, they’re asking that lawmakers in Washington do what any household in America already does: they want us to balance our budget,” said McConnell. “And they do this because they know their history, and that the road to decline is paved with debt.

Maybe the last chance to stop Reid. This people is the way to get to a smaller gov't.

If passed by the House and Senate and ratified by the states, the new Balanced Budget Amendment will:

1. Force Congress to balance the federal budget each year;
2. Limit federal spending to no more than 18 percent of GDP; and
3. Prevent tax increases

Furthermore, the only way for Congress to get around these limitations is with a 2/3 super-majority vote in the House and Senate to waive them.

Quote: WALL STREET JOURNAL
March, 30, 2011

Why I Won't Vote to Raise the Debt Limit

Everyone in Washington knows how to cut spending. The time to start is now.

By MARCO RUBIO

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

Politically, the "raise taxes" issue is going to be the most problematic.

First, are manditory fees "taxes"??
Second, if we can't increase taxes, congress is going to be hesitant to cut them either. In fairness to the "competitive" argument, if the world goes back to 50% corporate taxes, we'd be cheap/competitive at 40%

I get the idea and support it, but I think it will be tough to get 20 Democrats to support it.

It is a start..but...I won't hold my breath to see this happen.

Isn't this the only way citizens can rid of of the beast of over bloated bureaucracy we currently are forced to endure? For Fo .... and at the point of a gun to our collective heads.

(04-04-2011 05:02 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Isn't this the only way citizens can rid of of the beast of over bloated bureaucracy we currently are forced to endure? For Fo .... and at the point of a gun to our collective heads.

I'm all for it....the smaller the weapon the better.

THIS needs to be the goal. Either this passes and is signed into law, or we'll shut it the hell down until you do.