By Nicole Gaudiano
December 14, 2011
Sen. Tom Carper supported one of two proposals rejected by the Senate on Wednesday to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.
The Delaware Democrat was among 21 senators -- 20 Democrats and one Republican -- who voted in favor of the bill by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado. Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware was one 79 senators who voted against the bill. Carper and Coons both opposed the Republican measure by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. It failed on a 53-47 party-line vote. Amendments to the Constitution must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
In a statement, Carper said Udall's plan was similar to one he promoted as a House member during the 1980s. Despite that earlier measure's failure, it focused the country's attention on the need to balance the budget, he said.
Carper said he supported Udall's amendment as a way to address deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts, two wars and severe recession. He noted that Congress passed balanced budgets four times during the Clinton administration.
"My hope is that, despite its failure, we can still muster the courage to do what we did in the 1990s and balance our budget," he said. "We don't need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to do what we know is right. What we need is leadership, courage and to be mindful of our responsibility to the American taxpayer."
Hatch's proposal would have required two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate to raise taxes and three-fifths majorities to raise the national debt ceiling. It also would have capped spending for any budget year at 18 percent of gross domestic product.
Unlike Hatch's approach, Udall's proposal would not have capped spending and did not require a supermajority to raise taxes. It would have protected Social Security funds from being used to balance the rest of the budget and would have barred millionaires from getting tax cuts unless the budget was in surplus.
Both bills would have waived the requirement for a balanced budget in times of war or national emergencies.
In a statement, Coons called Hatch's plan "dangerous" and "impractical." He said it would have compelled "radical and crushing cuts" to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, left Congress "hamstrung" on taxes, and prevented responsible entitlement reforms. He also said it could have prevented Congress from responding to economic conditions and national priorities in a timely way.
He said Udall's proposal was "more constructive" but lacked important safeguards, including a "rainy day fund" similar to the one in place in Delaware. Such a fund would ensure the country could honor its commitments, even in the event of a sudden economic downturn.
"Before we consider amending the Constitution, I urge my colleagues to make every effort to reduce our federal deficits and curb our national debt through deliberate, responsible legislative actions," Coons said. "I believe there is still much more we can and should do to live within our means before we consider amending the Constitution."
Wednesday's Senate action fulfilled lawmakers' commitment -- part of the August deal raising the nation's debt limit -- to vote on a balanced budget amendment.
The House voted last month on a GOP proposal that fell 23 votes short of the required two-thirds majority. Rep. John Carney, D- Del., voted against the measure and proposed his own.
