Summary

2/6/2013--Introduced. Constitutional Amendment - Prohibits total outlays (except those for payment of debt) for a year from exceeding the average annual revenue (except that derived from borrowing) collected... Read More

Status

This resolution was introduced on Feb 6, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not passed.

Bill Text

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

``Article--

``Section 1. Total outlays for a year shall not exceed the average annual revenue collected in the three prior years, adjusted in proportion to changes in population and inflation. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for payment of debt, and revenue shall include all revenue of the United States except that derived from borrowing. ``Section 2. Congress may by a roll call vote of two-thirds of each House declare an emergency and provide by law for specific outlays in excess of the limit in section 1. The declaration shall specify reasons for the emergency designation and may authorize outlays in excess of the limit in section 1 for up to one year. ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ``Section 4. This article shall take effect in the first year beginning at least 90 days following ratification, except that outlays may exceed the limit in section 1...

Read Full Text

Sentiment Map

Select:

Nation

138 Supporting
28 Opposing
83% 17%

State: CA

6 Supporting
4 Opposing
60% 40%

District: 1st

0 Supporting
1 Opposing
0% 100%

Popularity Trend

Organizations Supporting

February 7, 2013 Dear Representative Amash: On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I write in support of H.J. Res. 24, your “Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment” (BCBBA). This creative proposal would amend the U.S. Constitution to incorporate a mechanism providing for long-term balance of the federal budget. It would provide Congress with budgeting flexibility while still maintaining real protections from the out-of-control spending that threatens our solvency. Instead of requiring annual balance, the BCBBA establishes an expenditure level based on a three-year average of prior revenues plus adjustments for inflation and population growth. Unlike restrictions that are based on measurements of the size of the economy, the BCBBA’s main aspect is tied to previous revenue. This has the benefit of being a “knowable” number rather than an estimate, while utilizing a three-year average ensures that temporary fluctuations do not translate into wild swings in federal spending. The BCBBA combines this common-sense spending rule with a simple provision allowing for a robust supermajority of Congress to waive the amendment’s restrictions in the case of an emergency. This failsafe would allow Congress the ability to budget for true national security or economic emergencies without opening a large loophole through which massive amounts of non-urgent spending could be driven. It should be noted that NTU continues to support several paths toward constitutional fiscal discipline, including amendments to prevent spending and taxation from growing beyond their historical shares as a percentage of our economy. However, we believe that the BCBBA would also achieve many of the same goals that other measures can by properly aligning incentives in budgetary policy. Because its structure provides for long-term balance while allowing for short-term fluctuations, there would be no justification for rushing to enact tax hikes in order to meet any annual requirements. The result would be a federal budget that is much more stable and predictable in its growth while still encouraging fiscal responsibility and affordability for taxpayers. NTU has approached the current legislative evolution of the BBA not merely as an interested observer or even as a concerned stakeholder. Instead, we view this process through a 44-year organizational history, in which constitutional reforms to help guide deliberation on the size of government have occupied the central part of our mission. The federal budget has only been balanced five times since NTU’s founding in 1969. This dismal record proves that neither “political will” nor statutory measures are up to the challenge of protecting taxpayers and providing for a sustainable fiscal future. Through its innovative structure, the BCBBA would properly enshrine long-term balance in our Constitution while facilitating substantial flexibility. The BCBBA is a worthy approach to long-term fiscal discipline. We urge Representatives to co-sponsor H.J. Res. 24 and to work toward its enactment. http://www.ntu.org/news-and-issues/budget-spending/bba-tla/l13_01-21_business_cycle_balanced_budget_amendment.html

Organizations Opposing

No organizations opposing yet.

Users Supporting

I support H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...it is arrogant and criminal on your part to believe that you can just tax hard working Americans to provide whatever services you decide the gov't should provide. Your framework should be to collect the taxes that the American people feel are fair and then portion that revenue into the programs that best serve the most people. Under no circumstances should the gov't EVER spend more than it takes in.

Share
MN
3
Anonymous449490
MN-3
1 year ago

I support H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...maybe just maybe Congress could learn how business should be run which would benefit our country greatly. If the government was run like a business we could be out debt within 10 years at the longest.

Share
TN
3
DocFreeman
TN-3
1 year ago

I support H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because a good business cannot sustain itself without planning and taking financial responsibility. A real business will eventually go bankrupt due to overspending or due to lack of product development due to under-investment. The government simply overspends and burdens future generations with unsustainable debt. It is time for responsible legislators to start running the government as a business and bring this irresponsible practice to a halt.

Share
MI
8
Anonymous2351584
MI-8
1 year ago

I support H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...anything less should come with a prison sentence.

Share
MO
4
mackelby
MO-4
1 year ago

I support H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...NC and most states have a BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT most US households must use the balanced budget process to survive. My government MUST be required to operate under the same requirement.

Share
NC
13
fhovaniec
NC-13
1 year ago

I support H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...The Government should have to follow a budget, and if they do not have the money, then they should not be allowed to spend it. The debt that our nations has is amazing and in a bad way.

Share
IL
12
Abijah
IL-12
1 year ago

Users Opposing

I oppose H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...this is a joke. These criminals don't follow the Constitution now and that is why we're where we are. Lock those who violate their oath of office away now.

Share
NV
2
JLFM
NV-2
1 year ago

I oppose H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because... Payment of debt must be included in the total outlays

Share
MS
1
CloudedVision
MS-1
1 year ago

I oppose H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States because if a constitutional convention gets underway, the whole Constitution can be changed. There is nothing that can guarantee the budget amendment is all that will be worked on. It is very dangerous to our Constitution which has created the strongest, most free and successful nation in the history of the world. There is good reason the Constitution did not change for over 200 years. The founders of the nation did go through tough fight for freedom; compared to us now they had more wisdom and knowledge of what indeed needs to be protected by the Constitution as they fought themselves against that evil. The same will be true about other proposed unnecessary amendments. Thank you for consideration and your service.

Share
IL
2
theitperson
IL-2
2 years ago

I oppose H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because... We don't need and amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enact a las for a balanced budget. We just need to enact the law without any sunset.

Share
TX
8
TRRowley
TX-8
2 years ago

I oppose H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because...end debt ceiling increases balance the budget and operate within in your means cut the waste and the duplicate agencies. restore our constitution and bill of rights restate the Posse Comitatus Act, end the patriot act, NDAA, the police state laws and agencies. stop pushing a socialist form of government, taking away our rights. it has to be stopped now. if we keep headed down this path it will destroy us all. if a constitutional convention gets underway, the whole Constitution can be changed. There is nothing that can guarantee the budget amendment is all that will be worked on. It is very dangerous to our Constitution which has created the strongest, most free and successful nation in the history of the world. There is good reason the Constitution did not change for over 200 years. The founders of the nation went through tough fight for freedom; compared to us now they had more wisdom and knowledge of what indeed needs to be protected by the Constitution as they fought themselves against that evil. The same will be true about other proposed unnecessary amendments.

Share
OK
3
dr.roy
OK-3
2 years ago

I oppose H.J.Res. 24: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. because... This amendment would do nothing more than give the government an excuse to raise taxes more, thereby effectively making people slaves to the state/government.

Share
WA
2
ChristopherJamesKnight
WA-2
2 years ago

Bill Summary

<br /> 2/6/2013--Introduced.<br /> Constitutional Amendment - Prohibits total outlays (except those for payment of debt) for a year from exceeding the average annual revenue (except that derived from borrowing) collected in the three prior years, adjusted in proportion to changes in population and inflation. Requires a two-thirds roll call vote of each chamber to declare an emergency and provide by law for specific outlays in excess of such limit. Requires the declaration to specify reasons for the emergency designation, and allows it to authorize outlays in excess of the limit for up to one year. Prescribes a formula for reducing, over each of 10 years, the excess (deficit) of outlays over the average annual revenue collected in the three prior years, adjusted for population and inflation changes.<br /> <br />

H.J.Res. 23 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to li... H.J.Res. 25 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to cl...