How Can We Balance Our Unwieldy Budget and Ballooning National Debt?
By Ryan Binkley, Republican Presidential Candidate, and Jake Novak, Political Analyst and TV Producer
We Must Demand A Balanced Budget Amendment
By Ryan Binkley – Republican Presidential Candidate
Any hope of fiscal responsibility returning to our federal government evaporated following former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s capitulation to President Biden and the Democrats on September 30th that kept the government running and the cash machines churning. Yet again, we’ve learned that the weak-kneed politicians in the Capitol will never get spending under control unless the American people make them. Therefore, we must add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A Runaway Money Train
Our leaders have long since abandoned even the appearance of fiscal restraint. Over the last seven years, the federal budget deficit has doubled from $620 billion to $1.375 trillion while our national debt has soared beyond $33 trillion with no signs of stopping. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio has reached 118 percent, meaning our nation owes more money than our entire economy is worth. The interest on our national debt is now the fastest-growing category of federal spending, and there is no reason we should expect this to change without drastic reform.
Far from benign, this level of national debt forces future generations to pay for our mistakes. It reduces our ability to fund our national defense and support our allies. That is why public debt was aptly deemed by Thomas Jefferson as “the greatest of the dangers to be feared.”
A budget cannot be balanced if one is never created in the first place. In 1974, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act which established a process and a timeline to create a national budget. In theory, that is still the law of the land today. Yet since 1974, Congress has met its own budget deadline only seven times. To keep the government running in the absence of a budget, Congress must pass a Continuing Resolution, similar to Speaker McCarthy’s latest treaty of surrender. This has happened an additional 192 times over the last 49 years. If Congress were a football team, it would be a roster of 535 punters.
However, Congress’ failure to pass a budget has done nothing to hamper its enthusiasm to spend money. Since 1960, Congress has voted 78 times to increase the national debt limit. They have never voted to reduce it.
A Constitutional Solution
If Congress ignores even its own spending rules, let alone the dictates of fiscal common sense, then we must craft federal budgeting requirements they cannot wiggle out of. That necessitates adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This approach is not novel, even in our own country. Forty-six states have balanced budget requirements in their own constitutions. It is time to demand the same of our federal government as we do of our states, municipalities, and businesses. If not, we risk becoming the generation that prospered the most but sacrificed the least.
A Balanced Budget Amendment is Not Realistic
By Jake Novak – Political Analyst and TV Producer
There is not a single thing factually wrong in Mr. Binkley’s opener about our exploding national debt as well as the consequences the U.S. faces now and in the future because of that spending. He is right about how both parties, Congress, and countless presidential administrations are responsible for this outrage.
There is also nothing incorrect about his point that a Balanced Budget Amendment would be an essential and powerful tool to curb that spending. There is just one problem—it will never happen. Unfortunately, promoting solutions that have zero chance of being implemented do little more than keep our problems alive and kicking.
The process of passing an amendment to the Constitution requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures to vote to propose an amendment. Yes, the same Congress that can barely elect a House Speaker or pass emergency aid bills to Israel that nearly everyone supports. Then, even if the proposal clears that process, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve it.
The kicker is the U.S. Supreme Court puts all of this on the clock with its ruling stating that the ratification must be within “some reasonable time after the proposal.” Thankfully, there are alternative options to reining in the fiscal runaway train.
The Answer Lies in the Executive Office
The easiest and most direct tool would be to elect a presidential candidate who pledges to balance the budget or at least seriously cut spending. If you polled the American public about a theoretical presidential candidate who promises to make cutting spending and balancing the budget a top priority, that hypothetical candidate would do pretty well. This has been shown in polls for years.
The problem arises once we start talking about what exactly should be cut. There is not one significant expenditure in the federal budget that wouldn’t hurt the poll numbers of any presidential candidate who advocates for reducing a penny of that spending. Throw in the dishonest characterizations and titles that politicians and the news media slap onto even the craziest spending and suddenly everything is a sacred cow. Even something like unbiased, evenly allocated, “across the board” cuts for all expenditures is undermined by this political and cultural reality.
Not an Easy Solution, but an Attainable One
As tough as this would be for any presidential candidate, finding someone willing to endure and effectively counter the attacks from the hysterical pro-spending forces is still our best hope. To use a Biblical analogy, looking for one strong president to mobilize an effective spending policy as opposed to huge majorities in Congress and state legislatures is like trying to find one righteous man in Sodom as opposed to 100, 50, or even ten.
A Balanced Budget Amendment effort would need a charismatic leader behind it. The personality and top-down culture of our politics in America is often a hindrance to decent government. But in this case, with the right person, it would be both an advantage and the only plausible solution.
Hard Work Pays Off, Literally
By Ryan Binkley – Republican Presidential Candidate
In his response to my call for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Novak takes the novel approach of agreeing with my analysis of the facts, my explanation of the nature of the problem, and even the effectiveness of my proposed solution. Mr. Novak’s chief complaint boils down to the idea that it is simply too difficult to amend the Constitution and we should resign ourselves to merely trying to elect fiscally responsible leaders. Sadly, for both Mr. Novak and our nation, that approach has failed time and time again.
Power of the Purse, Not the President
Mr. Novak’s plan to elect charismatic presidential candidates who promise to balance the budget and cut spending would be perfectly fine if presidents had the power to do either of those things on their own. They do not.
The Constitution grants the power of the purse to the Congress. American presidents do not even have line-item veto authority, a power enjoyed by many of our states’ governors, empowering them to trim egregious legislative spending. Presidents can propose balanced budgets and spending cuts all they want, but they have to get Congress to go along with them.
In fact, recent Presidents have failed to get Congress to pass any budget at all, let alone one that was balanced. Indeed, if all we needed was to elect strong, charismatic presidents committed to fiscal sanity, then Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, or the Bushes would have been able to balance the federal budget. They were not. That’s why my “7-Year Economic Rescue Plan” includes specific reforms to the budget process that will require Congress to pass timely budgets.
Opportunity is Missed
As Mr. Novak correctly points out, expecting Congress to rein in its own wasteful spending is wishful thinking at best. According to his own argument, the political pressures brought by special interests to keep the federal money spigots open are nearly impossible to overcome.
It is clear that neither party in Congress has the desire to balance the budget. It is equally clear that American president lacks the constitutional authority to bring Congressional spending under control. The only solution is amending the U.S. Constitution to mandate that Congress and the president work together to balance the budget.
Thomas Edison warned, “Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.” If we ever want to rein in spending, tackle the national debt, and build a secure future for our children, we cannot dismiss the only effective solution simply because it is hard.
Strong Personalities Create Opportunities
By Jake Novak – Political Analyst and TV Producer
Mr. Binkley and I agree about the severity of our national debt and we agree that there is no sign of fiscal responsibility from our political leaders anywhere on the horizon. After reading his rebuttal, I realize that we only disagree about process and timing.
I remain convinced that major legislation, no matter how necessary and logical it may be, needs to be promoted by a personality first (i.e. presidential candidate, sitting president, etc.) for it to have any chance of passing.
Learning from History
This process is not without pitfalls, as we saw during former President Donald Trump’s first campaign. Trump brought the problems at our southern border, ignored by most of the news media for years, to the forefront of the national ethos.
Sadly, the rightful spotlight on the security and humanitarian threat illegal immigration posed to America became just another polarizing issue in our partisan divide. In fact, it became so polarizing that Trump’s opponents actually adopted suicidal immigration policies just to oppose and spite him. I say “suicidal” because so many of the Democrat-controlled cities that declared themselves “sanctuary cities” to flout the Trump administration are now overrun with the fiscal and logistical costs of illegal migrants on their streets.
The question is: If someone less personally polarizing than Trump had presented the border issue in 2015 or presents the dire need for a balanced budget law in the future, would it have a better chance to succeed?
My answer would be yes, on both counts, and I still think presenting the issue of a balanced budget on the back of a successful presidential campaign first and then pursuing a Balanced Budget Amendment is the best approach. Hopefully, there will be lessons learned by looking closely at how the media and opposing political powers responded to Trump and his border wall campaign.
First Time for Everything
Mr. Binkley is right that no president in the past has been able to balance the budget, but I think that is because none of them have really wanted to do so. Presidents in recent decades who spoke about balanced budgets from time to time eventually succumbed to other issues that were a higher priority for them. Ironically, the last president who presided over a budget surplus was Bill Clinton, who never made balancing the budget a significant part of his policy message.
In other words, the “candidate first, amendment second” approach has never really been tried. While I acknowledge that the chances for success from my model are thin, I think they are still better than trying to create some kind of movement for a Balanced Budget Amendment without a singular personality vying for the White House to lead it.
If you enjoyed this article, please make sure to like, comment, and share below. You can also read more of our Political Pen Pals debates here.
Ryan Binkley
Ryan Binkley is the co-founder and CEO of Generational Group, a mergers and acquisitions firm with nearly 400 employees across North America. He and his wife, Ellie, are co-founders of Create Church. Ryan is running for president to bring hope and healing to our nation and to inspire Americans to trust in God and each other.
Jake Novak
Jake Novak has been the executive producer of financial news TV programs, an editorial columnist, podcaster, and political analyst for 28 years. He also served as the media director for the Israeli consulate in New York. Jake has a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University and a Master of Arts in Journalism from Northwestern. He is also the father of two teen girls.