Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Introduced January 3, 2025 · Last action January 3, 2025
Plain English Summary
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would require the federal government to spend no more than it collects in revenue each fiscal year, prohibit increasing the national debt limit, and require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress to pass any bill that raises taxes. If ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would fundamentally reshape federal budgeting and fiscal policy.
Who benefits
Fiscal conservatives and taxpayers opposed to government spending growth; individuals and corporations in high-income and wealth brackets (who would benefit from the two-thirds tax supermajority requirement blocking revenue increases); defense contractors and federal contractors who would face reduced competition for shrinking federal budgets; states and municipalities opposed to federal spending in policy areas they contest.
Who pays / loses
Beneficiaries of federal spending programs including Social Security recipients, Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid enrollees, federal employees, military personnel, veterans, students receiving federal aid, families in poverty receiving assistance programs, infrastructure workers, and rural communities dependent on federal projects; domestic industries relying on federal contracts or subsidies; state governments dependent on federal revenue-sharing; low-income households who would face reduced access to means-tested benefits if spending must match revenue.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Fiscal conservative organizations, anti-tax advocacy groups, and limited-government think tanks have historically championed balanced budget amendments. Rep. Biggs' 2024 campaign contributions show minimal PAC funding ($0) but substantial individual 'Other' category contributions ($491,954.81), suggesting grassroots or independent donor support rather than traditional corporate lobbying. Energy, finance, and transportation industries contributed modestly, representing business interests that typically favor lower tax rates and reduced regulatory spending.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Approximately 47 million Social Security beneficiaries, 67 million Medicare beneficiaries, and 72 million Medicaid beneficiaries would face potential benefit reductions. Federal employees (2.3 million) and military personnel (1.3 million active duty) would face uncertain compensation. Approximately 32 million students with federal aid and millions of low-income households receiving SNAP, housing assistance, and other means-tested programs would experience program cuts. Rural counties dependent on federal infrastructure spending and contractors providing goods and services to the federal government would see reduced federal procurement.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue a balanced budget amendment would discipline federal spending, reduce inflation, lower interest rates, and restore fiscal responsibility. Critics counter that the amendment would force severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense during economic downturns precisely when these programs stabilize the economy; that it removes Congress's flexibility to respond to recessions, wars, or emergencies; that the two-thirds tax supermajority effectively locks in current tax rates and prevents revenue increases to meet national needs; and that no major developed economy operates under such a constraint. The Congressional Budget Office has documented that balanced budget requirements at the state level correlate with pro-cyclical fiscal policy (spending cuts during recessions, tax increases during downturns) that deepens economic damage. Economists across the ideological spectrum note that the federal government, unlike households, can sustainably run deficits during economic stress and has the power to issue debt in its own currency.
Real-World Stakes
If ratified, this amendment would eliminate the federal government's ability to run deficits. Current federal revenues (approximately $4.9 trillion annually) would have to equal spending immediately, requiring either spending cuts of roughly 20-25% or revenue increases of equal magnitude. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and federal employee compensation account for approximately 85% of federal spending, meaning cuts would fall heavily on these programs or require politically difficult tax increases that would require supermajority approval. During the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the federal government ran deficits of 9-10% of GDP to prevent economic collapse; under this amendment, such response would be constitutionally prohibited. State-level balanced budget requirements (all 50 states have some form) correlate with pro-cyclical fiscal contraction—states reduced spending during the 2008-2009 recession and 2020-2021 pandemic, exacerbating economic hardship. The last major recession where the federal government was unable to deficit-spend (early 1930s) preceded the Great Depression's worst years. The amendment would also require a two-thirds supermajority to raise any revenue, giving a minority coalition veto power over tax policy and effectively preventing revenue adjustment even if spending needs grow due to demographics (aging population increasing Social Security and Medicare costs by law).
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Emergency Spending Carve-Out Definition
The amendment likely contains language defining what constitutes an 'emergency' that allows spending above revenues, but the specific definition and who determines emergency status is not in the summary.
AffectsCongress and the Executive Branch could have significant discretion in classifying spending as emergency-related, potentially allowing large expenditures to bypass the balanced budget requirement during crises, wars, or declared emergencies.
Social Security and Medicare Treatment
The amendment's treatment of mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare) versus discretionary spending is not specified—it could require cuts to these programs or exempt them differently.
AffectsSeniors and disabled individuals could face benefit reductions if mandatory spending is included in the revenue limit, or the amendment could create constitutional conflicts between the balanced budget requirement and existing entitlement law.
Revenue Definition and Timing
The amendment does not clarify what counts as 'revenue' (does it include borrowing, asset sales, accounting adjustments?) or how revenue is calculated if it varies during the fiscal year.
AffectsThe Treasury Department and Congress could manipulate accounting methods or timing of revenue collection; this affects the actual enforceability of the requirement and could incentivize creative accounting.
Tax Increase Definition for Two-Thirds Requirement
The resolution requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes but doesn't define what constitutes a tax increase—it's unclear whether this applies to closing loopholes, ending deductions, or only to rate increases.
AffectsTax policy would become rigid; eliminating tax expenditures or deductions could be treated as tax increases requiring supermajority votes, making tax reform extremely difficult and potentially protecting certain tax preferences.
Debt Limit Suspension Authority
The prohibition on increasing the debt limit may contain an exception or mechanism for temporary suspension, or the amendment may be silent on how existing debt is serviced if no new borrowing is allowed.
Sponsor
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$491,954.81
Energy$12,600
Finance$9,971
Transportation$2,653.33
Healthcare$1,580
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.