Congress proposes constitutional straitjacket on federal spending
H.J.Res. 139 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government. · Filed by Andy Biggs (R-AZ) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 9, 2026 · Failed
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 joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to spend no more than the average of the prior three years' revenues (adjusted for population and inflation), with narrow exceptions for wars and two-thirds congressional votes. It also requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers to pass any new tax or tax increase. The amendment would fundamentally constrain federal spending and tax authority, shifting power toward deficit reduction and away from discretionary fiscal policy.
Why we flagged it
This is a structural constitutional amendment designed to permanently constrain federal spending and tax authority. It is not routine legislation but a fundamental rewrite of fiscal federalism, shifting power away from elected branches toward automatic spending caps and supermajority requirements.
What the text implies
- During recessions or pandemics, automatic spending caps would force cuts to unemployment benefits, healthcare, and emergency response—the opposite of countercyclical policy that stabilizes economies.
- The two-thirds tax requirement makes it nearly impossible to adjust tax policy for inflation, wage growth, or changing revenue needs, effectively locking in today's tax structure indefinitely.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
bond markets and creditors (lower long-term debt risk); wealthy individuals (two-thirds tax requirement protects high earners from progressive taxation)