Wealth and Investing Center

House to consider balanced-budget amendment

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:37pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives will vote on a bill that would amend the Constitution to require Congress to balance the budget each year, Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Thursday.

The measure has little chance of becoming law, but it could give Republicans added leverage as they struggle with Democrats over a budget-cutting deal that would allow the country to continue borrowing money and avert a default on its debt.

Cantor walked away from the talks earlier in the day, saying negotiators were at an impasse over tax increases sought by Democrats.

The Treasury Department has warned that it could run out of money to pay the country's bills if Congress does not increase the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by August 2. That could push the country back into recession and rattle markets across the globe.

Some conservative Republicans say they won't back a debt-ceiling increase unless Congress first approves the constitutional amendment. Cantor said he would schedule the vote for the week of July 25, shortly before the August 2 deadline.

Though the bill may pass the Republican-controlled House, it has little chance of winning a required two-thirds vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate. It also would need to win approval from 38 of the 50 state legislatures before taking effect. The last constitutional amendment, limiting congressional pay raises, was ratified in 1992.

Tax cuts, wars, and a deep recession have pushed annual budget deficits to their highest levels relative to the economy since World War Two. The deficit for this fiscal year, which ends September 30, is projected to hit $1.4 trillion.

Though a balanced budget amendment would keep the country's debt in check, opponents say it would make the government unable to blunt the impact of economic downturns or react to emergencies.

In the late 1990s, the U.S. budget was balanced without any such constitutional amendment.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
If you try to increase taxes, people protest.
If you reduce benefits, people protest.
How do you balance the budget in a democracy?
Would people vote for somebody who promises “I will increase your taxes and reduce your benefits” or would you vote for somebody who promises you tax cuts (because somebody else will pay them) or/and increase your benefits (because somebody else will pay them)
Do you favor borrowing more money or you prefer a dollar devaluation?
A balanced budget hurt somebody, hurt many. After the hurt a sane economy that has the potential to creates real prosperity will exists.

Jun 23, 2011 7:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tomas43 wrote:
Nothing about Eric Cantor surprises me anymore. Quit when you don’t get all that you want and propose a meaningless amendment to the Constitution later that same day. Cantor knows that the balanced-budget amendment has a zero chance of passing and he also knows that President Obama and Speaker Boehner will finally arrive at an agreement without his having to lose the political support of the extreme right-wing. Not exactly a leader but the name of the game is keeping the title “Majority Leader”, right?

Jun 23, 2011 7:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
turrboenvy wrote:
The problem with the federal budget is not the lack of amendment demanding it be balanced.

Jun 23, 2011 7:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.