Senate rejects balanced budget plans
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Senate rejects balanced budget
plans
By: Scott Wong, Politico
The Republican plan, authored by the Senate Finance Committee's
top Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, failed on a straight
party-line 47-53 vote, falling 20 votes shy of the two-thirds
threshold required to change the Constitution. The entire GOP
Conference backed the amendment, while Democrats were united in
their opposition.
The Democratic plan, authored by Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado,
was defeated by a wider margin - on a 21-79 vote - largely because
most Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, opposed
the idea of such an amendment. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) joined 20
Democrats, several facing tough reelections next year, in voting
"yes."
Even if an amendment had been passed by Congress, it still would
have needed to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The White House opposed both proposals, stating that a
constitutional amendment wasn't needed "to do the job of restoring
fiscal discipline."
"The president has proposed a plan that cuts the deficit by $4
trillion, including the deficit reduction already locked in by the
Budget Control Act, and the administration is committed to working
with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to achieve real deficit
reduction," the White House said in a Statement of Administration
Policy.
But with the nation's debt now topping $15 trillion, Republicans
have spent the past year pressing for a balanced budget amendment,
similar to the one that cleared the House and fell one vote shy of
passing the Senate 15 years ago.
"If spending were a drug, Congress would be an addict," Hatch
said in a floor speech before the votes. "An addict ignores the
evidence and denies he has a problem. An addict claims over and
over that he can stop his addictive behavior any time he wants. But
like a real addict, Congress cannot kick the habit on its own.
Congress needs help."
The Hatch plan would have required Congress to balance its
budget each year unless two-thirds of members in both chambers
agreed to a deficit. It also called for an 18 percent spending cap
and a supermajority in both houses to hike taxes or raise the debt
limit. There are some exceptions for running a deficit during times
of war.
The Udall alternative would have required a balanced budget each
year unless three-fifths of members in both chambers voted to waive
it for national emergencies. It also could be waived during a
military conflict. But it would have barred Congress from providing
income tax breaks for millionaires or tapping into the Social
Security Trust Fund to balance the budget.
Democrats charged that the GOP plan was overreaching, while
Republicans said the Democratic plan didn't go far enough.
"The Democratic alternative allows Congress to continue doing
exactly what has caused this crisis in the first place," Hatch
said. "It allows members of Congress committed to a tax-and-spend
philosophy to continue sending taxpayer dollars to special
interests at the expense of the general fiscal health of this
country.
"A so-called solution that continues to enable out-of-control
spending is no solution at all," he said.
Following Hatch on the floor, Udall shot back that the GOP plan
provided "unrealistic limitations" on the government that could
harm worker retirement accounts, undermine national defense and
protect special interest tax breaks.
Hatch's proposal "would turn our Constitution into a document
that protects every special tax deal that has been successfully
lobbied for over the years," Udall said. "That is not what our
constituents - hard working Americans - expect from a balanced
budget amendment."
Among those who voted for the Udall plan were a handful of
vulnerable 2012 Democrats: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia,
Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson
of Florida and Jon Tester of Montana.