Congress proposes constitutional straitjacket on federal spending
H.J.Res. 11 — .Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution requiring that each agency and department's funding is justified. · Filed by Scott Perry (R-PA) · 4 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 3, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the federal government to balance its budget each year (spending no more than it collects in revenue), with narrow exceptions for war, military threats, and natural disasters. It caps total federal spending at 20% of GDP initially, declining by 0.1 percentage points annually until it reaches a floor of 16% of GDP. It also requires any tax increase to pass by a three-fifths supermajority, prevents the national debt limit from rising without a three-fifths vote, and mandates that every federal agency justify its budget requests by explaining how each dollar serves its mission and affects the economy.
Why we flagged it
This is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would impose mandatory balanced-budget rules, spending caps, and supermajority voting requirements on federal fiscal policy. It is not a statute but a proposal to alter the Constitution itself.
What the text implies
- The declining GDP cap (20% down to 16%) would force automatic spending reductions even if the budget is balanced, potentially requiring cuts to mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare unless revenues rise proportionally.
- The three-fifths supermajority requirement for tax increases makes it structurally harder to fund government through progressive taxation, potentially shifting burden toward regressive revenue sources or forcing spending cuts.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
A balanced budget amendment would constrain federal spending and potentially reduce deficits, which some view as fiscally responsible; however, it would also severely restrict Congress's ability to respond to recessions, public health crises, or economic shocks without a supermajority, and would force automatic cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, and other programs if revenues fall short. The mandatory supermajority for tax increases makes it harder to fund government through progressive