On the recordNovember 17, 2011
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 2. Despite its name, this amendment does not balance the budget. It would have little effect on our deficit but could seriously harm our economy. It would destroy jobs, drastically cut Medicare and Social Security, and unconstitutionally give Federal judges the power to make spending decisions. And this amendment does not even require a balanced budget every year. What it does it make it easier to cut taxes and more difficult to raise taxes in order to allocate money to important programs that protect our veterans, our seniors, and our most vulnerable. It could also allow Federal judges to have the final say on taxing and spending decisions. No one knows if amending the Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget will actually reduce the debt. No one knows if it could prevent the debt from growing in the future. What we do know is that when Democrats controlled Congress, PAYGO was effective in reining in spending. And what we do know is that this amendment is not the answer. If a balanced budget requirement were to go into effect, it would destroy millions of jobs. If the budget were balanced through spending cuts, those cuts would come to about $1.5 trillion in 2012. This would throw 15 million more Americans out of work, double the unemployment rate to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by 17 percent.…





