When government grows, prosperity shrinks. So does freedom. With those powerfully simple truths in mind, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican, and Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, on March 3 introduced one of the most intriguing constitutional amendment proposals in years. Their Spending Limit Amendment merits great attention and with a few tweaks will deserve enthusiastic support.

Except in times of declared war or when two-thirds of each house of Congress decides otherwise, the amendment would limit "total annual outlays" of the federal government (except repayment of principle of the national debt) to "one-fifth of economic output" of the country. Mr. Pence and Mr. Hensarling, along with original co-sponsor Rep. John Campbell, California Republican, note that federal spending of 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) has been the historical average since World War II, and spending didn't breach 23 percent in a single year for more than four decades. Under the current spending explosion, however, outlays have risen from exactly 20 percent to a near-astronomical 24.7 percent in just two years, with the trend line heading toward 40 percent over the next two decades.

By foisting mind-boggling amounts of debt onto generations yet unborn, this spending is so unsustainable as to be immoral. It's also completely counterproductive in the short term. "You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity," Mr. Hensarling said Thursday on a media conference call. He's right. So was Mr. Pence when he repeatedly emphasized that limited government and minimal debt are essential elements to national security. That's because domestic spending sprees crowd out available resources for security and because overspending often puts us in hock to foreign governments that buy our debt.

The fact is that when 1995's new Republican Congress began rescinding (taking back) federal spending that already had been approved and then held the line on spending for the next three years while also reforming welfare, the economy boomed. Spending was 21 percent of GDP in 1994, and it was held in succeeding years to percentages of 20.7, 20.3, 19.6, 19.2, 18.7 and 18.4. As spending discipline increased, GDP grew during that period at a steady and superb clip of an average 4 percent per year, and the national unemployment rate improved steadily from 6.1 percent to 4 percent.

One drawback is that the amendment as drafted leaves it to Congress to pass "enabling legislation" to put the limit into practice. For example, the amendment does not explain how "one-fifth of economic output" is to be measured. Mr. Hensarling suggests using the average GDP for the previous five years. But lawmakers could instead define it as some sort of "projected" GDP for the coming year and then fudge the projections to give themselves more wiggle room. To avoid that, the amendment should define its goals with more specificity.

Nitpicking aside, the amendment makes a ton of sense. Members of Congress who won't sign onto it ought to be held to account.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/08/stop-the-orgy-in-congress/

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." Vice President Dick Cheney to SecTreas Paul O'Neill in 2002 when O'Neill raised objections to another round of tax cuts making the then projected deficit rise to over 500 billion. O'Neill was fired shortly thereafter.


-Kerry O.

Limiting spending is a good idea. Congress doesn't seem to be able to do on their own.

EXACTLY!!!!

Too bad that proposed legislation (from many years ago) to cap spending didn't pass....now, we got trillion dollar deficits!!!

sounds good so far, except the last line. I dont have all the information congressmen will so if they find reasons that it isnt as good as it sounds, ,especially when it comes to acting on such a bill and deciding WHICH areas are going to be sacrificed the most to achieve the reduced spending,,,,,

for example, from http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/01/obama-wants-to-limit-government-spending-despite-high-unemployment-and-a-fragile-economy.html

Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs, by Jackie Calmes, NY Times: President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs... The officials said the proposal would be a major component both of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address


to achieve such a reduction it will call for sacrifice, and I will understand if those who are hit worst by the sacrifices have objections and don't sign on,, it will only mean they are holding to their principles as much as I am to my own

Ah, I believe the last line is referring to the voters kicking them out of office.....

oh, I understand that, but I think its unfortunate is all. I never liked the all or nothing approach.

I am possibly a rare voter, I dont expect my rep or senator to agree with EVERYTHING I say I want. I do expect them to make sound decisions with the information they receive though(which, as a voter, is generally vastly different than the limited information I have).

To more fully realize the intent of the proposed legislation, one should compare the governments of Texas and California. Texas has a balanced budget constitution, is currently in the black, has the best job and housing market in the US, has no income tax, believes in personal freedom, and has a favorable general attitude towards business.

California is as close to bankruptcy as the US federal government, spends like crazy regardless to tax revenues, has a high income tax, intrudes deeply into people's private lives, has severe problems with gangs, housing, and is driving business away with unfavorable taxes.

Both systems are microcosms of the US economy and each could be models for example by the federal system.

One works well and one does not.

What you say willis?

From http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-statebudgets_02nat.ART.State.Edition1.4bc0ce1.html

Texas could face a $16 billion shortfall in its next two-year budget. The federal spending plan the White House laid out on Monday probably won't make a dent in that – though Texas and other cash-strapped states could get help later this year.


we have no perfect models to adhere to, even the national healthcare is not without its flaws in Britain and other european countries, but there is always things we can do to incorporate what DOES work for others

Key words: (1) Constitutional. (2) Amendment.

No.

We have enough to do trying to keep the Constitution intact until 2012. The last thing we need to do is open an opportunity to amend away the protections we currently have. Be careful what you wish for.

The constitution has always been a work in progress, with twenty seven amendments to date (if Im not mistaken)

Yes, you're right. I'd like to see it remain that way rather than have it arbitrarily done away with by people who have no appreciations of the freedoms it protects.