Prior to , balanced budgets were not uncommon. Only in the last few decades has the nation run chronic deficits. And soon after The Concord Coalition began, policymakers were able to balance the budget four times from to -- all without a constitutional amendment. Now the nation faces large projected increases in deficits, and debt is projected to grow faster than the economy.
The key to reversing that trend: Policymakers and the public having the political will to do so -- and acting on it, as they have at times in the past. A constitutional amendment cannot substitute for that political will, nor should the absence of an amendment serve as an excuse for irresponsible fiscal policy.
Debate at the Constitutional Convention centered on two issues. The first was to ensure that the executive would not spend money without congressional authorization. The second concerned the roles the House and Senate would play in setting fiscal policy. At the Convention, the framers considered the extent to which the Senate—like the House of Lords—should be limited in its consideration of budget bills.
The provision was part of a compromise between the large and small states. Smaller states, which would be over-represented in the Senate, would concede the power to originate money bills to the House, where states with larger populations would have greater control. This end would. The Convention reconsidered the matter over the course of two months, but the provision was finally adopted, nine to two, in September The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate.
The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies. The First Congress — passed the first appropriations act—a mere 13 lines long—a few months after it convened. This simple process was short-lived. Over time, nine regular appropriation bills emerged and funded such priorities as pensions, harbors, the post office, and the military.
These were considered on an annual basis by the late s. The House Committee on Ways and Means, which also had jurisdiction over tax policy, controlled the appropriations process. But legislation and funding were always kept separate. Priorities were spelled out in one law and money appropriated for those priorities in another. This has remained the practice, as substantive committees design authorization acts and the House and Senate Appropriation Committees fund authorized programs later.
Indeed, there are laws and parliamentary rules against making new law in appropriation bills, although such rules are periodically waived. The Appropriations Committee was established to fund programs, while Ways and Means retained jurisdiction on tax policy. The amendment would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to run annual budget deficits. Most amendment proposals go further than requiring a balanced budget or budget surpluses.
Some of the most frequent additional elements are:. Supporters of a balanced budget amendment argue that respect for the Constitution will create strong political pressure to rein in deficits and impose needed accountability for irresponsible fiscal policy.
Because few elected officials would be willing to face constituents with a budget that violates the Constitution, opposing parties would be forced to compromise and pass legislation that would meet the constitutional requirement. Opponents argue that the political pressure could lead to budget gimmicks that would meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
0コメント