It is central to a free society that every man owns his own
soul. Thus the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
A free society must not live in fear of the state: hence the
Second Amendment.
We do not trust democracy or the separation of powers to protect
freedom of religion or of the press, or the right to keep and bear
arms. In those cases, the Constitution was specifically amended to
highlight the danger and protect us.
Then where in the U.S. Constitution, designed primarily to limit
the power and scope of the federal government, is there a limit to
the size and cost of the state?
Did everyone in Philadelphia just assume this was understood?
Sort of the way they forgot to mention property rights—because
everyone assumed they were assumed?
For at least 30 years now, conservatives have been working to
enact a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the federal Constitution
to prohibit or limit Congress’s ability to borrow money.
In 1975, the National Taxpayers Union, founded by James Dale
Davidson and William Bonner, despaired of two-thirds of the 435
congressmen and two-thirds of the 100 senators actually passing a
BBA and sending it out to be ratified by the required three-fourths
of the states. Instead, NTU began a drive to exercise the portion
of Article V of the Constitution that allows two-thirds (34) of the
state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to
propose an amendment that would then become part of the
Constitution only when ratified by three-quarters (38) of the
states. Such a maneuver has never been successful in the history of
the U.S.
NTU reasoned that the problem was Congress’s spending, so the
states would use the Constitution’s second method of amending
itself to bypass Congress entirely.
It was a close run thing. Thirty-two states did eventually enact
convention calls for the sole purpose of proposing a balanced
budget amendment. Understandably, labor unions poured millions into
the effort to derail the convention calls. Criticism also sprang
from the right: Phyllis Schlafly and the John Birch Society feared
a “runaway” convention that would rewrite the entire Constitution.
The effort stalled, and over time many states rescinded their
convention calls.
Then, in the 1980s, liberals hijacked the language of balanced
budgets. Throughout the '50s, '60s, and '70s it had been
conservatives who denounced “deficit spending.” They had criticized
government spending and viewed “deficit” as an intensifier. When
Reagan’s tax reductions were enacted, however, the left borrowed
the language of the right and cloaked their support for restoring
higher tax rates as “deficit reduction.” Note the clever removal of
the word “spending.” And opposition to “deficits” became the bumper
sticker argument against tax cuts and for tax hikes. “Deficit
Hawks” has ever since been the preferred label for tax increasers,
just as abortion advocates prefer to be called “pro-choice.”
That soured the ardor for the balanced budget amendment, and it
receded into the background until the 1994 Republican landslide put
the BBA front and center. The promise to vote for a BBA was the
first of 10 promises in the “Contract with America.”
But the freshmen who swarmed into Washington well remembered the
Democrats’ misuse of the “deficit” issue to oppose tax reductions
and push tax increases. They met with newly elected Speaker
Gingrich and adamantly refused to vote for the BBA unless it
included a two-thirds vote requirement in order to pass a tax
increase bill. They felt that a simple or weak balanced budget
amendment would strengthen the hand of those who would use deficit
spending as a weapon to demand not spending restraint, but tax
hikes.
In a 30-minute meeting, a deal was cut. The freshmen would hold
their noses and vote for the weak balanced budget amendment without
any limits on taxes—knowing that the Senate would never pass the
amendment anyway—in return for the Speaker’s commitment that every
year the House would vote on a stand-alone constitutional amendment
to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.
The deal was kept. The House voted 300–132 to send the BBA to
the states for ratification. The Senate failed to pass it by just
one vote. The House held votes on an amendment requiring a
two-thirds supermajority vote to enact any tax hike on or about
April 15 throughout Gingrich’s speakership, and that commitment was
also kept by his successor, Denny Hastert. That amendment garnered
a majority of the House each year—but never two-thirds.
THE BBA was pushed to the fore once again this summer by the 87
freshmen Republican congressmen, many of whom demanded that a vote
on a BBA be part of the debt-ceiling deal with President Obama.
That vote for a BBA must take place before January 1, 2012.
But that agreement did not stipulate which BBA would be voted on
in the House or Senate. If one body passes an amendment with the
requisite two-thirds, then the other body must vote on the same
wording. Otherwise, the House might vote on one amendment and the
Senate a different one.
There is a growing agreement among conservatives that the best
vehicle for both chambers is what is known as the “Senate consensus
amendment” because every single Republican senator, from Maine to
Alaska, has cosponsored this amendment. Now, anything with the
words “Senate” and “consensus” in the title usually shouts, “lowest
common denominator” and “not worth the candle.” But the earth’s
axis has shifted. The Senate Republican “consensus” is the toughest
of all the amendments being considered. It requires a three-fifths
vote to borrow money, a two-thirds vote to increase taxes, limits
total federal spending to 18 percent of GDP (we are now at 25
percent), and forbids the federal courts from using the amendment
to force tax hikes to balance the budget.
The robust “consensus” amendment is sponsored by every single
Republican in the Senate, with chief sponsors being Utah senators
Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch and Kentucky senator Rand Paul. In the
House the robust amendment is cosponsored by Illinois congressman
Joe Walsh and Virginia’s Robert Goodlatte.
The main alternative is the weak amendment that requires a BBA
without any limit on spending or the taxing power of Congress.
There are two other ideas that have great appeal but are not viewed
as options this go-around. Michigan congressman Justin Amash’s
amendment limits federal spending to the average of the last three
years’ spending. California congressman Tom McClintock’s amendment
would simply forbid Congress from borrowing money.
For an amendment to win two-thirds of the House and Senate—if
it is to pass this Congress—it must garner the votes of all 242
House Republicans and all 47 Republican senators, plus 48
Democratic congressmen and 20 Democratic senators. Neither
amendment could possibly pass that test. But after the 2012
election and after the 2014 election the odds shift.
THE EMERGING consensus strategy is to put forward the robust
amendment with spending and tax limitations already endorsed by 47
senators and now cosponsored by 133 House members. It would receive
House Republican votes. Few Democrats could vote for such a strong
amendment. All those voting against the “balanced budget” amendment
because it limited spending and/or makes tax hikes too difficult
would be targets for defeat in 2012. Democrats have 23 Senate seats
up in 2012 and 20 up in 2014. Republicans could add to their 47
Senate votes all those they replaced in 2012 and all those they
scare with scalps taken in 2012.
Ditto the House drive to get to the magic number of 290.
The key negotiation strategy is developing as follows:
Republicans will refuse to change the robust language. They will
offer to negotiate with any Democratic amendment that is brought to
the table by 20 Senate Democratic cosponsors and 49 House Democratic cosponsors. No
watering down the robust amendment in the hope of winning five or
10 or “many” Democrats.
Everyone remembers the game Democrats have played with the BBA
in the past, allowing those up for reelection to vote yes, while
those like Montana senator Max Baucus—who won election promising
to vote for a BBA—vote no when not in cycle. (They play the same
musical chairs game in defeating repeal of the death tax.)
Those Republicans who actually expect to pass the amendment this
year argue for the watered-down version that would maximize
Democratic votes. That, of course, would minimize the number of
Democrats who could be defeated in 2012 using the BBA issue and
collapse Democratic support in 2013 and beyond.
The drive for a Balanced Budget Amendment remains the quest for
the Holy Grail for limited government advocates. But as the
penultimate scene in Indiana Jones
and the Last Crusade reminds us, there is all
the difference in the world between grasping the correct Grail and
grabbing the wrong one.
