U.S. House to consider balanced-budget amendment

WASHINGTON, June 23 | Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. 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. [ID:nN1E75M0MQ]

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 Aug. 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 Aug. 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 Sept. 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 (5)
ruet wrote:
“…..opponents say it would make the government unable to…..react to emergencies”

Aren’t most emergencies occurring in ‘red states’ anyway? Withholding money from these states which are suffering from a disaster seems fair to me.

Jun 23, 2011 6:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cgallaway wrote:
This is a dumb idea. Carrying debt is not always a bad thing. Ask anyone with a mortgage or car payment how they would afford these big ticket items if they had to make sure it was all paid off by the end of the year. I would think that when amendments to this bill are considered, they should put in there that only those congressmen who do not have any outstanding debt could vote in favor of such a bill. Be it credit card debt, mortgage, auto loan or a business loan. If they can’t run their own life without borrowing money, what makes them think that they can run the United States without borrowing? Like they are more fiscally responsible with taxpayer’s dollars than they are with their own.

republicans…fn hypocrites

Jun 23, 2011 7:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sirspaul wrote:
Key bit of information …

“The measure has little chance of becoming law …”

Sounds like classic Republican grandstanding.
Propose something that THEY KNOW cannot be enacted and then crow about how the “socialists” are holding everything up.

Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor?

Jun 23, 2011 7:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.