Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Impact
The potential impact of HJR17 on state laws is significant as it could set a precedent for stricter budgeting practices within states that may seek to mirror federal requirements. A balanced budget amendment at the federal level could drive states towards adopting similar fiscal policies, aiming to avoid deficits and manage public finances more conservatively. This could lead to changes in state tax collection, spending on public services, and overall financial management, compelling states to operate in a financially sustainable manner.
Summary
HJR17 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that mandates a balanced federal budget. This amendment stipulates that total outlays for any fiscal year cannot exceed total receipts unless a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate allows for a specific excess. The aim of this amendment is to enforce fiscal responsibility at the federal level by preventing the government from running a deficit. It necessitates that the President present a budget that adheres to this limitation prior to each fiscal year.
Contention
Notable contention surrounding HJR17 focuses on the implications it would have for government services and the economy. Critics argue that rigidly enforcing a balanced federal budget could stifle necessary government expenditures, particularly in economic downturns when increased spending might be needed to stimulate growth. Proponents, however, assert that such an amendment is crucial for preventing unsustainable debt levels and promoting responsible fiscal governance. This debate touches on broader discussions regarding the role of government in economic management and the balance between fiscal responsibility and necessary government intervention.