House Dems Reject Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have required the federal government to maintain a balanced budget, dealing a setback to one of the conservative movement’s longest-running fiscal priorities.

Lawmakers voted 211-207 against the resolution, which would have started the process of amending the Constitution to prohibit deficit spending.

Because constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress before being sent to the states for ratification, the measure faced a steep uphill battle from the beginning.

Nearly every Democrat opposed the proposal, with only one voting in favor.

The amendment effort was significant for fiscal conservatives and budget hawks, including its sponsor, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., who has spent years pushing for stricter limits on Washington’s runaway spending.

“Many of us have been agitating for years to do a balanced budget amendment, and out of the blue, they said, ‘we’re ready to do it,’” Biggs said in an interview.

“They didn’t ask me to do anything, didn’t offer anything,” he said, referring to House GOP leadership. “Just out of the blue, I got a call,” Biggs added.

Balanced budget amendments have been introduced more than 100 times since 1999, according to legislative data analyzed by the Pew Research Center.

The idea reached its peak in the 1970s and 1980s and remains one of the most frequently proposed constitutional changes.

Biggs’ proposal would have required federal spending in a given year to stay below the average annual revenue collected over the previous three years, adjusted for inflation and population growth.

The resolution included an exception for declared wars, allowing Congress to approve spending beyond the cap in those circumstances.

That exception has long been a sticking point in debates over balanced budget requirements.

Many modern military conflicts, including those after World War II, were funded through deficit spending without formal declarations of war, complicating efforts to impose a strict constitutional spending cap.

The proposal also would have required a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate for any new taxes or tax increases.

Under current law, certain tax legislation can pass by simple majority through procedures such as budget reconciliation.

Supporters of the amendment argue that Washington will never control the national debt without a hard constitutional limit on spending.

Opponents argue that a balanced budget requirement could limit the federal government’s ability to respond to recessions, emergencies, wars, or other crises.

For conservatives, Wednesday’s vote highlighted a familiar problem: lawmakers from both parties talk about fiscal responsibility, but very few are willing to impose real discipline on federal spending.

The national debt continues to grow, interest payments are consuming a larger share of the federal budget, and taxpayers are being asked to fund a government that repeatedly spends far beyond its means.

While the balanced budget amendment failed, House Republicans did secure another victory Wednesday by passing legislation aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants accused of committing welfare fraud.

Lawmakers voted 231-186 to pass the Deporting Fraudsters Act, introduced by Rep. David Taylor, R-Ohio.

The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly classify fraud involving public benefits as a deportable offense.

Republicans said the measure is designed to ensure that noncitizens who defraud taxpayer-funded programs are removed from the United States and barred from coming back.

“If you admit to or you’re convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said during debate on the House floor.

Democrats largely opposed the bill, with 186 voting against it.

They argued that existing law already allows for the deportation of noncitizens convicted of fraud and claimed the legislation was unnecessary.

Republicans rejected that argument, saying the bill strengthens enforcement, closes loopholes, and makes clear that abusing taxpayer-funded benefits should carry serious immigration consequences.

GOP lawmakers also emphasized that the bill does not prevent criminal prosecution before removal and preserves existing legal processes.

The House is also expected to continue pushing the Save America Act again this week, as Republicans try to keep election integrity, spending restraint, and taxpayer protection at the center of their legislative agenda.

For conservatives, the contrast is clear.

Republicans are trying to stop fraud, limit abuse, and force Washington to respect the taxpayers who fund the government.

Democrats, meanwhile, overwhelmingly opposed a balanced budget amendment and largely resisted a bill targeting welfare fraud by illegal immigrants.

The balanced budget amendment may have failed this time, but the fight over Washington’s spending addiction is far from over.

And with the Deporting Fraudsters Act now passed by the House, Republicans have another issue to take to voters: taxpayer-funded benefits should go to eligible Americans, not fraudsters gaming the system.