After 15 straight years of deficits, this resolution would require a balanced budget

The last year the federal government had a surplus, meaning it spent less money than it took in, was 2001. Although the yearly budget deficit has declined every year since 2009, in January it was announced that the deficit would likely increase again in 2016.

S.J.Res. 6 would add an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget every year. Introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), it’s already attained 53 co-sponsors — more than half the Senate. It would literally be impossible for the proposal to be more polarizing: every single Senate Republican has signed on as a cosponsor, while not a single Senate Democrat has.

Support and opposition

“Every other approach has failed and our nation’s debt has grown to levels that all agree are dangerous. The Constitution is the American people’s rulebook for government, and a Balanced Budget Amendment is the only way to ensure that elected officials prioritize spending and are held accountable,” said Hatch. The press release also mentions that, adjusted for inflation, the national debt is now seven times its size when Hatch, the longest-serving current senator, introduced his first balanced budget amendment in 1979.

Opponents contend that this would curtail the government’s ability to run necessary (in their view) short-term deficit spending, such as the stimulus package in 2008–09 which many economists believe staved off an economic depression. Many, including even some conservatives, have also noted that an amendment could hamstring military operations too. For example, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks was a major contributor to the move from surplus to deficit in 2002 because it drastically increased military expenditures that had already been allotted for the year based on projected revenues.

However, 49 states require balanced budgets on a state level — all except Vermont. While this is considered a Republican proposal on a federal level — look at the co-sponsors — on the state level many Democrats have gotten on board. Perhaps this is an indication that Democratic opposition is not as firm as one might think.

Odds of passage

No constitutional amendment has been adopted since the 27th Amendment in 1992. Considering this was right before the 1994 Newt Gingrinch-led era which many consider to have begun the modern era of extreme political polarization, it will certainly be difficult to pass another amendment again. Even though Republicans maintain majority control of both the Senate and House, their numbers fall short of the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment out of Congress and send it to the states, a stricter threshold than necessary to pass most bills.

That’s why a coalition of states is attempting their own roundabout strategy. The Constitution allows two methods of passing an amendment, but only one method has ever been used successfully: pass two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, then get approved by three-quarters of state legislatures (or 38). But according to the other method, if two-thirds of state legislatures (or 34) propose an amendment first, then it doesn’t need congressional approval. (This was originally conceived in colonial times as a method of ensuring state autonomy.)

According to the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, 27 states of the required 34 have passed it so far, with an additional 13 states scheduled to consider the measure in 2016. With the Democrats likely gaining Senate seats and potentially even winning back their Senate majority in November — and with Republicans controlling the most state legislatures at any point in the party’s history, with no guarantee that will remain true after November — the GOP feels the clock ticking.

If Hatch’s proposal fails or doesn’t receive a vote, this roundabout method may just enact a constitutional amendment, for the first time that way in the nation’s history.

This post was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.