It's Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment

The U.S. national debt reached the latest in a series of sobering milestones recently. As of November 15, our accumulated debt officially stands at more than $15 trillion. Worse still, $4.4 trillion of that debt was racked up just since President Obama took office.

With a debt-to-GDP ratio fast approaching 95 percent, the United States is in the company of nations like Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Within 10 years, almost all federal tax revenues will be consumed by interest payments on the national debt and mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- leaving only 5 percent available for national defense and other vital functions.

Congress has passed a number of laws aimed at balancing the budget, from Pay-As-You-Go requirements to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997. These policies have been so ineffective that the federal budget has been balanced only six times in history, and the deficit has grown from $300 billion in 1960 to the current record of $15 trillion. It's been over 900 days and counting since the Democratic Senate has even bothered to pass a budget, despite being legally mandated to do so annually by the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.

As all these previous budget laws demonstrate, one Congress can easily undo or ignore the mandates of a previous Congress. Amendments to the Constitution, however, are not so easily defied. Accordingly, conservatives in Congress insisted that a vote be held on a Balanced Budget Amendment because it represents the best method for enforcing fiscal discipline in Washington.

On November 18, I was proud to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 2. Under this Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress would be prohibited under the Constitution from spending more than it receives in revenues unless a supermajority of three-fifths of both chambers approve. The same supermajority would be required to raise the debt ceiling. The president would be required to submit a balanced budget to Congress each year -- as opposed to budgets like the one President Obama offered this year, which was so irresponsible it was rejected in the Democratically controlled Senate by a vote of 98-0.

Balancing the budget may seem such an obvious concept that no constitutional amendment should be required. But Congress did not achieve its collective 9 percent approval rating by competently implementing obvious solutions. It did so by blithely kicking the can down the road year after year, expecting future Congresses and future generations to foot the bill. Even with a $15 trillion debt, some Congressional Democrats balked at the very idea -- including some members who actually voted for such an amendment in 1995. That year, the 104th Congress passed the Balanced Budget Amendment with 300 bipartisan votes in the House but fell just one vote short in the Senate of the two-thirds majority necessary for constitutional amendments. Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is one such member who has urged opposition in 2011 to a policy he voted for in 1995. Unfortunately, with the vote of 261-165, the measure failed to achieve the two-thirds majority vote required. This shortsighted failure to appreciate the magnitude of the coming debt crisis represents an excellent example of why a Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary.

As Ronald Reagan put it, "Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We've tried the carrot, and it failed. With the stick of the Balanced Budget Amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy." These words are even more true today than they were when President Reagan first uttered them in 1982.

Amending the Constitution is a very serious step. But our national debt has reached such an alarming level that only bold, serious action can prevent a debt crisis that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren. By refusing to send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the American people for a vote, congressional Democrats have demonstrated once again that they are not serious about debt reduction.