Congress proposes constitutional straitjacket on federal spending
H.J.Res. 2 — Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. · Filed by Andy Biggs (R-AZ) · 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 joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget every year—total spending cannot exceed total revenue. It also freezes the national debt ceiling and requires a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to pass any tax increase. If ratified by three-fourths of the states, this would become binding constitutional law.
Why we flagged it
The bill proposes a rigid constitutional constraint on federal spending and revenue, eliminating fiscal flexibility during downturns and requiring supermajority approval for tax increases—a structural shift that favors deficit hawks and constrains government's ability to respond to economic crises or fund public investment.
What the text implies
- During recessions, automatic spending cuts would deepen downturns by reducing demand when the economy is weakest—the opposite of proven countercyclical policy that stabilizes employment and growth.
- A debt ceiling freeze combined with a balanced-budget requirement creates a logical impossibility if revenues fall short; the amendment text does not specify which constraint takes precedence, potentially triggering constitutional crisis.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
high-income taxpayers (protected from progressive tax increases by supermajority requirement); deficit hawks and anti-government advocacy groups; bond investors (if spending cuts reduce inflation expectations)