Debt ceiling battle renews balanced budget debate (Updated)

U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, is using the debt ceiling debate to again push the Blue Dog Democrat position for a balanced budget amendment.

Ross’ push for a balanced budget amendment is supported by U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Rogers. Despite being on the opposite side of the political fence, both have said another debt ceiling debate will play out in the future if Congress does not reduce spending.

“In the midst of the debt ceiling negotiations in Congress, we sometimes lose sight of the big picture,” Ross said in a statement released Monday (July 18). “If Congress does nothing but simply raise the debt limit, we are ignoring the fundamental problem that spending is out of control and that we are once again kicking the can down the road until we hit the debt limit again.”

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution proposed in Congress requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate and must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states, or by a ratifying convention.

Beau Walker, Womack’s chief of staff, said Womack “is encouraged by Ross’ statements” and says the talk of a balanced budget amendment has been the “sweetener” in some of the debt-ceiling negotiations between Democratic and Republican leadership.

Like Ross, Womack has said the debt ceiling must be raised, but Walker said Womack does not support an open-ended limit.

“The reality is that we will have to raise the debt ceiling. … To what degree we raise the ceiling, that is still up in the air,” Walker explained.
 
Walker also said Ross and other Blue Dog Democrats — fiscally conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives — are “smart” to separate themselves from President Obama by pushing for a balanced budget amendment.

According to Ross’ office, a balanced budget amendment was almost approved by Congress in 1995. The amendment passed the House, but fell one vote short in the U.S. Senate.

Updated: According to Ross’ office, the “Blue Dog Balanced Budget Amendment” would:
• Provide seven years for three-fourths of the states to ratify the constitutional amendment;
• Protect Social Security benefits, ensuring that our most vulnerable are not subject to a reduction in their guaranteed benefits when they need them the most;
• Require Congress to produce a balanced budget every fiscal year;
• Require the President to submit a balanced budget in his or her annual transmission to Congress; and,
• Prohibit outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each House, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts.

Ross says the three-fifths House vote measure gives the federal government flexibility to respond financially during times of war or other national emergencies.

David Olive said the idea of a balanced budget amendment “is a good concept that makes sense to most people,” but the support and consensus often falls away when considering the ramifications of an amendment and the transition from present federal spending to the spending allowed under an amendment.

“The transition would be tough. … That’s what most people fail to consider in this debate. How do you move from what we have now to a strict balance, a balanced budget, in a year or two? … That would be very painful,” Olive said.

Olive, who worked as an attorney for Donrey Media, is the founder of Catalyst Partners, a Washington D.C.-based government relations and public affairs firm. He previously served as chief of staff for then-U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Fort Smith., in the 106th Congress.

One problem with a balanced budget amendment is that it would likely tie the financial hands of the country in time of war or “some other one-time dire emergency,” Olive said, adding that the Founding Fathers would not have survived under a balanced budget amendment because they borrowed heavily from the French to fund the Revolutionary War.

“Their question, their point, the people who oppose it (balanced budget) is this: ‘In times of national crisis we need the ability to go out and borrow money to help pay for things that will keep us going forward,’” Olive said. “That said, I will tell you that there are plenty of vocal people … who would be perfectly fine with not borrowing money to go to war.”

The bottom line as to why such a relatively simple concept as a balanced budget has failed to move forward is because the side effects aren’t simple, Olive said. A transition and including options for flexibility in time of war or other emergency are the usual obstacles toward consensus on a balanced budget amendment.

“The two of those are so related, that people have not found a way to get out of it, other than simplistic answers, which is often, ‘It’s the right thing to do so let’s do it and just take the pain,’” Olive said.

In his statement, Ross acknowledged that some oppose a balanced budget for practical reasons. But he said several states, including Arkansas, have proven a balanced budget requirement is not impractical.

“I will continue to monitor the debt ceiling negotiations very closely, but I will also be looking long-term and working to pass a balanced budget amendment,” Ross said.