The House responded to these alarming numbers by voting 211-207 to advance a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. Even though the “yea’s” outweighed the “nays,” the vote failed since amendments need a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate before going to the states for final ratification.
Nationally, every Republican voted in favor and every Democrat except one — Henry Cuellar of Texas — against. The Ohio delegation followed suit as all Democrats voted no, including Rep. Greg Landsman, whose district includes Springboro and Franklin. Reps. Mike Turner, Warren Davidson, and Jim Jordan, who represent large swaths of the Dayton region, each voted yes.
Some analysts dismissed the vote as largely symbolic because you can’t get two-thirds of lawmakers to agree on the color of the sky, let alone something as consequential as stopping the government from spending like teenagers with their first credit cards.
Balanced budget efforts have existed since the 1940s and gained momentum in the 1970s. Between 1961 and 1997, the country ran a surplus one year ($3.2B in 1969). The deficits never exceeded $290.4B in 1992 ($647.6B in today’s dollars).
In 1997, the Senate fell one vote short (66-34) of passing an amendment opposed by President Bill Clinton, who believed the bill would harm the ability of future administrations to spend during emergencies.
Under Clinton, the United States ran surpluses for four consecutive years before the Iraq War increased spending again, and the country hasn’t run a surplus since 2002.
The debt number, at 124% of GDP, may not be bad on its own. Since financial institutions and investors remain willing to buy debt, it has room to grow further, some economists believe.
But other factors spell trouble ahead. When combined with higher interest rates and slower growth, the debt is unsustainable, according to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research.
So why won’t politicians act? There’s no political advantage for either side because neither party really wants to tackle the deficit. Democrats worry that safety net programs will face serious changes or cuts, and Republicans worry about defense spending.
Every state in the country, except Vermont, has a balanced budget provision, though some are stronger than others. The federal government has different and more expensive obligations, but voters elected them to tackle tough problems.
Having said that, voters focus on the here and now, which means gas, food, and energy prices. Generally, they don’t worry about a debt number that’s so big it’s hard to comprehend, and warnings that we’re at the precipice of financial disaster.
Last week, Ohio’s State Teachers’ Retirement Commission passed benefit changes effective June 1 that require educators to teach for 32 years instead of 27 to receive full benefits. In later years, the full benefits threshold will increase. This will help keep STRS solvent and protect future benefits.
That’s the type of formula federal lawmakers will have to consider to rein in entitlement payments, which continue to grow. Social Security (24%) and health insurance (21%) account for 45% of expenditures. There’s no path to a balanced budget without tackling those costs.
Anyone who votes no on an effort to control spending does a disservice to the country and their constituents. The financial bill isn’t due yet, but it will be soon. It’ll be massive and impact everyone because politicians, once again, didn’t do their job.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday.