Overview
Title
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that the money the U.S. government spends each year does not go over what it earns, like making sure your piggy bank only spends what you have inside. But, if there is a big emergency, like a war or natural disaster, Congress can vote to spend more for those special situations.
Summary AI
H. R. 9353 proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require the federal government to maintain a balanced budget, meaning its spending (outlays) does not exceed its income (receipts) each fiscal year. Exceptions to this rule could be made if there’s a three-fifths majority vote in both houses of Congress, during a declared war or major military conflict, or when the economy is struggling with low growth or high unemployment. The bill outlines that outlays for emergencies like natural disasters may not count towards the budget, and it protects Social Security and Medicare payments from being cut to enforce the amendment. If ratified, the amendment would take effect five fiscal years after its approval.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution aims to ensure that the federal government's expenditures do not exceed its income each fiscal year. This amendment also allows certain exceptions and outlines stipulations under which these conditions may not apply. The amendment mandates that any spending above the government's revenue must be approved by a three-fifths majority in Congress, except during specific circumstances such as war, national security threats, or economic downturns. The amendment also safeguards social welfare programs from judicially mandated spending cuts.
Summary of the Bill
The primary goal of this proposed amendment is to ensure fiscal responsibility by preventing the federal government from spending more than it earns. Exceptions to this rule are provided for specific extraordinary circumstances, including times of war, severe economic distress such as low economic growth or high unemployment, and emergencies like natural disasters. The amendment stipulates that the President must propose a balanced budget annually. Additionally, it explicitly protects Social Security and Medicare payments from reduction orders by U.S. courts unless those funds are inadequately solvent.
Significant Issues
Several concerns arise from the amendment's language and its practical implications. The vagueness of terms like "military conflict" and "imminent and serious military threat" could lead to broad interpretations, potentially allowing Congress to bypass the balanced budget requirement. The provision that allows for economic exceptions based on GDP growth and unemployment rates uses technical language, such as the "annualized rate of 0.0 percent," that might not be clear to all stakeholders and could lead to inconsistent applications.
Furthermore, the requirement for a supermajority vote to exceed budget constraints in emergencies might impede the government's ability to react swiftly to fiscal crises. Excluding certain expenditures, such as those from trust funds or disaster-related spending, from budget calculations may result in a less transparent view of national finances. Also, limiting the judiciary's role in financial decision-making regarding social programs may reduce oversight in these critical areas.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this amendment could mean a more disciplined approach to federal budgeting, potentially leading to a reduction in national debt over the long term. However, the inability to exceed revenue in response to immediate economic needs may cause concerns if rapid fiscal mobilization is needed to address unforeseen national crises. The protection of Social Security and Medicare funds is likely to reassure citizens relying on these programs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government officials would be bound by stricter fiscal rules, facing potential challenges when addressing budgetary needs that exceed revenues, especially if garnering a three-fifths majority proves difficult. Policymakers may find this amendment both a tool for fiscal prudency and a constraint during exigencies.
Social program beneficiaries may find comfort in the amendment's guarantees against automatic cuts to critical welfare programs, preserving their financial security. However, without judicial enforcement, any political decision-making by Congress affecting the solvency of these funds won't have the same level of oversight.
Economic analysts and fiscal watchdogs might appreciate the amendment's structured approach to government spending but may also be wary of the exceptions that could be inconsistently applied or manipulated under vague definitions. Transparency activists might advocate for clearer language to ensure accountability and detailed communication to the public.
In summary, while the proposed balanced budget amendment brings merits in terms of fiscal responsibility, the potential ambiguities and operational constraints could present challenges in its application. These issues warrant close attention from both lawmakers and stakeholders to ensure a balanced and effective approach to national budgeting.
Issues
The amendment's exemption clauses for military conflict and economic downturns in Sections 3 and 4 lack precise definitions and could be subject to broad interpretation, potentially allowing for abuse or misapplication of the balanced budget requirements during such times.
The requirement that any fiscal year where outlays exceed receipts must be approved by a three-fifths majority in each House (Section 1) could be difficult to achieve, leading to challenges in responding to fiscal emergencies.
The language in the bill, such as the 'annualized rate of 0.0 percent' in Section 4, is vague and could lead to differing interpretations, affecting the consistent application of the amendment based on economic conditions like GDP growth and unemployment.
Section 7 prohibits courts from enforcing reductions in Social Security or Medicare payments, potentially limiting judicial oversight in financial decisions affecting these programs.
The lack of specific measures and enforcement mechanisms for maintaining budget balance in Sections 1 and 2 leads to potential issues with fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Section 6 allows for certain outlays, such as those from trust funds or relating to natural disasters, to be excluded from budget considerations, which could obscure the total fiscal picture and complicate transparency and accountability in government spending.
The bill's legalistic language may not be easily understood by the general public, which could reduce transparency and public engagement with fiscal policy decisions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
— Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution aims to ensure that the federal government's spending does not exceed its income unless approved by a special vote in Congress, with exceptions for times of war, economic downturns, and certain emergency situations. It also prohibits courts from reducing Social Security or Medicare payments unless funds are insufficient, and it outlines that the amendment would take effect beginning the fifth fiscal year after ratification.
1. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, it is stated that the government's total spending for any fiscal year should not be more than its total income, unless a law is passed by a three-fifths majority in both houses of Congress allowing for higher spending through a recorded vote.
2. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes that each fiscal year, the President must send Congress a proposed budget for the U.S. Government that ensures spending does not exceed income.
3. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Sections 1 and 2 of the Article described will not apply during any fiscal year when the U.S. is at war or facing a military threat to national security. This must be officially declared by a joint resolution that is passed by a majority in both Houses of Congress.
4. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The rules in Section 1 and Section 2 of this article do not apply during a fiscal year if the U.S. economy had very low growth or high unemployment in recent quarters or months. Specifically, these rules are waived if the economy's growth rate was below 0.0% for two or more consecutive quarters, or if the unemployment rate was above 7% for two or more consecutive months.
5. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress is given the authority to create laws to carry out and enforce this article, and these laws may be based on estimates of money the government expects to spend and receive.
6. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that, except for certain conditions, all government receipts and outlays are considered, excluding those from borrowing and debt repayment. Additionally, funds related to Social Security and Medicare, as well as disaster expenses, are not counted as receipts or outlays if a law explicitly allows this and is accepted by a majority in both Houses of Congress.
7. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that no courts in the United States can order a reduction in Social Security or Medicare payments unless the funds available aren't enough to cover the payments for the fiscal year, ensuring that these payments continue unless absolutely necessary.
8. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the article will come into effect starting with the fifth fiscal year after it has been ratified.