Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would require the federal government to balance its budget, prohibit increases in publicly held federal debt, and require two-thirds approval in each House for any revenue-raising bill. If both the House and Senate approve this joint resolution by the required two-thirds votes, it would not go to the President but would be sent to the states. It would become part of the Constitution only if three-fourths of the state legislatures ratify it.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, is not submitted to the President, and must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to take effect.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring annual federal outlays not to exceed receipts.
It also forbids increasing the limit on debt held by the public and requires a two-thirds rollcall vote in each House to enact any revenue-increasing bill.
The amendment would become part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.
A sweeping balanced-budget constitutional amendment with no exceptions or implementing detail is historically difficult to secure two-thirds and then three-fourths state ratification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states the broad constitutional changes it would enact (a balanced budget requirement, a static public debt limit, and a supermajority requirement for revenue increases) but is sparse on operational detail. It omits definitional clarifications, transitional and emergency provisions, fiscal impact acknowledgement, and enforcement/accountability mechanisms that would be relevant to implementing such substantial constitutional constraints.
Progressives emphasize social program and recession risk
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize social program and recession risk
Likely opposes the amendment as written.
It would constrain spending on social programs and emergency fiscal responses and raise risks of default or cuts to safety-net programs.
Mixed but cautious.
Supports fiscal responsibility in principle but worries the amendment is overly rigid and lacks necessary emergency or technical detail.
Generally favorable.
Praises mandatory balanced budgets and limits on borrowing, and supports two-thirds requirement to raise revenue as protective of taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A sweeping balanced-budget constitutional amendment with no exceptions or implementing detail is historically difficult to secure two-thirds and then three-fourths state ratification.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize social program and recession risk
A sweeping balanced-budget constitutional amendment with no exceptions or implementing detail is historically difficult to secure two-third…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states the broad constitutional changes it would enact (a balanced budget requirement, a static public debt limit, and a supermajority requirement for revenue…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.