The House of Representatives recently completed hearings on “Examining Proposed Constitutional Amendments.” The hearings focused on two proposed Constitutional amendments — term limits and a balanced-budget amendment. The hearings also explored the question of amending the Constitution under Article V.
Legislators have rediscovered Reaganomics. As president, Ronald Reagan supported term limits and a balanced-budget amendment and enacting these amendments through an Article V convention. However, before we break out the champagne, we must put this question in a historical perspective.
The Founding Fathers anticipated it would be difficult for Congress to impose limits on its power of the purse. They incorporated Article V in the Constitution to give citizens and the states, and Congress, the power to propose amendments.
Legislators have been proposing a balanced-budget amendment for almost a century. The high-water mark in this effort was in 1995 when a resolution calling for it fell one vote short of the requisite two-thirds for Congress to propose the amendment. Since then, many resolutions for a balanced-budget amendment have been introduced, but support for these resolutions has decreased. Prospects for Congress to propose a balanced-budget amendment in the current political climate are not promising.
Citizens and the states have proposed fiscal rules as amendments to the Constitution for more than a century. But Congress has failed to count these resolutions and call the convention. The Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation is challenging the failure of Congress to fulfill this duty as required under Article V.
A breakthrough occurred in Congress this year. House Budget Committee Chairman Jody Arrington, R-Texas, introduced a resolution requiring Congress to count these state resolutions and call the amendment convention. State attorneys general will also submit a mandamus suit claiming that Congress has failed to fulfill its obligation to call the convention.
The Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation has launched a campaign to enact a new fiscal rule in the Constitution. The proposed amendment would replace the debt limit with a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment (FRA). The FRA would freeze the total debt incurred by the federal government. It would mandate that Congress bring expenditures into balance with revenues.
The FRA should be distinguished from an annually balanced budget rule, i.e., balanced-budget amendment. An FRA requires Congress to balance the budget over the business cycle. An FRA would also cap the growth rate in federal spending at the long-run rate of growth in national income. With an FRA, Congress could increase debt only in an emergency such as war and with a supermajority vote. Recent polls reveal that an overwhelming majority of citizens support an FRA.
The proposed FRA is based on fiscal rules enacted in other countries, such as Switzerland. The Swiss “debt brake” is a constitutional fiscal rule that has enabled that country to reduce debt as a share of national income by half over the last two decades.
A growing number of legislators recognize the failures of Congress and support the efforts of citizens and the states to exercise the power granted to them in Article V. In an interview with Mark Levin, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-California, expressed support for an Article V amendment convention to address the debt crisis. When asked if he supports the states using Article V to call the convention to propose measures such as term limits and a balanced-budget amendment, he responded, “Yes, I support it 100 percent.”
Given the threat of government shutdowns and potential default on debt, it is time for the people to act and avoid this fiscal cliff. With an FRA, citizens — rather than politicians — could determine how much government they want and are willing to pay for. The miracle is that this year, legislators have rediscovered Reaganomics. Citizens should not waste this unique opportunity.
