Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
If ratified, HJR110 would have significant implications for federal budgeting and spending practices. It could limit the government's ability to run deficits, which has been a common practice during economic downturns or crises. The amendment could enforce stricter fiscal discipline, encouraging lawmakers to prioritize budgetary balance and scrutinize expenditures more closely. In theory, this could also foster greater public confidence in the financial stewardship of the government, as it emphasizes accountability and responsibility in federal fiscal policies.
HJR110 proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at instituting a balanced budget requirement for the United States. The amendment mandates that the federal government's expenditures must not exceed its receipts, except for payments on public debt. This requirement is intended to ensure a more disciplined approach to federal financial management and aims to achieve a balanced budget within ten years after the amendment's ratification. Notably, Congress would gain the ability to authorize expenditures exceeding the balance through a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during emergency situations.
The proposal is not without its critics, particularly regarding the potential consequences of such a requirement. Opponents of HJR110 raise concerns that enforcing a balanced budget may hinder the government's ability to respond effectively to crises, such as recessions or national emergencies, where increased spending is often necessary. They warn that a rigid adherence to a balanced budget could lead to cuts in essential services during dire times, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. Additionally, the debate over HJR110 highlights differing philosophies on fiscal policy and the role of government in economic management.