Heck touts balanced budget amendment
Republicans who control the U.S. House are teeing up a vote this week on a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget, a cornerstone for conservatives and one issue that has long divided the parties.
This morning a group of Republican freshmen, including Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., promoted the legislation as a solution to the nation's fiscal woes by mandating an end to deficit spending.
"One of the things that can absolutely change how business is done in Washington is a balanced budget amendment," said Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D.
"We simply cannot afford Washington's spending spree any longer," Heck said at the event. "We must seize this opportunity to change Washington's culture."
Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., also is expected to vote for the constitutional amendment. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said this week she will vote against it, saying it inevitably would lead to deep cuts in safety net programs.
Berkley was planning a telephone press conference for later in the day to speak against the proposal. She planned to decry it as an "assault on Medicare, Social Security and veterans benefits."
The House legislation this week will require a two-thirds majority to pass, a steep bar. Beyond that, it is highly unlikely the Democrat-controlled Senate will take it up. President Barack Obama has said he is against it.
Heck, whose Las Vegas area district is ground zero for foreclosures and whose state leads the nation in unemployment, said it would take at least "a year or two" for the necessary 38 states to ratify the constitutional amendment even if it were to pass Congress.
"Hopefully by then the economy will be rebuilding and the safety net programs are not going to be as vulnerable," Heck said. "But how much more vulnerable can these programs be if the country is bankrupt?"
In an interview, Heck started to say he was "confident," the constitutional amendment would pass the House but caught himself and said rather he was "cautiously optimistic" due to the popularity of the balanced budget movement outside the Beltway.
"When 75 percent of the U.S. population says, regardless of party, that they want a balanced budget amendment, those who vote against it do so at their own peril," he said.
The amendment that is up for a vote would require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress, which would not be allowed to spend more than is received in revenues in any year unless three-fifths of the House and Senate vote for it.
It also would require a three-fifth vote to raise the debt ceiling, which Congress struggled mightily to do this summer. It also requires Congress to take roll call votes in order to raise taxes, although that could be done by a simple majority.
The amendment provides for limited exceptions in times of military conflicts.
Arguments for and against the amendment can be found here.
At this morning's event, Republicans pined for 1995, when a balanced budget amendment passed the House, 300-132 with bipartisan support. The effort failed a year later in the Senate by one vote.
"Just think of what would have happened if it has passed then," Berg said. "The United States of America would be the fiscal powerhouse of the globe."
But in a story this morning, Politico went into detail on the politics behind this week's vote and why things are much different now than they were in 1995.
