House rejects balanced budget amendment
WASHINGTON
(AP) — The House on Thursday rejected a GOP-led effort to try to amend
the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. The vote was
staged to try to demonstrate that Republicans controlling Washington
care about budget deficits that have spiraled on their watch.
The
233-184 tally fell well short — as expected — of the two-thirds
requirement to pass a proposed amendment to the Constitution.
It
came just a few weeks after GOP leaders engineered passage of a
budget-busting $1.3 trillion catchall government funding bill, and after
passage last year of sweeping tax cuts that would add about $1.8
trillion to the debt over the coming decade.
“Let’s
call this ‘balanced budget amendment’ what it is: a stunt to give
Republicans political cover for their deficit-exploding tax scam,” said
Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the top Democrat on the House Budget
Committee. “The party of so-called fiscal hawks has become the party of
fiscal hypocrites. They know it, and so do the American people.”
Plenty
of Republicans feel the same way. Many party conservatives were upset
by the recent catchall spending bill, which gave Democrats far more for
their domestic priorities than they won under former President Barack
Obama.
“Every
Republican who voted for the omnibus should be required to hold a sign
saying: ‘I’m a hypocrite. I’m voting for the balanced budget amendment
but I don’t really mean it,’” said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
“It’s a show vote,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
Supporters
of the amendment said it’s the only tool that could give lawmakers the
spine to make the unpopular choices that have eluded them.
The
House passed a balanced budget amendment in 1995, when deficits were
far smaller but interest in eliminating them was far greater. Then,
defeat of the balanced budget amendment in the Senate sparked an effort
by Republicans to attack the deficit through regular congressional
procedures. There’s no such urgency now, even as the deficit is on track
to hit $1 trillion within a couple of years.
President
Donald Trump, for instance, opposes cuts to Social Security and
Medicare retirement benefits — choices lawmakers would have to confront
if the amendment were in place.
The
measure, if passed by two-thirds of both House and Senate and ratified
by 38 states, would require a balanced federal budget within the coming
five years unless supermajorities of both chambers voted to lift the
requirement. As a practical matter, it could force draconian cuts across
the budget, put pressure on Congress to raise taxes, or be waived by
lawmakers unable to agree on how to live within its strictures.
Not a single top House GOP leader took part in the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment