[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 125 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    IN OPPOSITION OF BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, August 19, 2011

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution represents bad economics--pure and simple. To require 
a balanced budget every year without regard to the state of the economy 
would threaten to make recessions more frequent, more protracted, and 
deeper. It would require greater cuts to spending at the time when the 
Federal Government would be needed most to use countercyclical policies 
to aid its citizens and states in weathering economic crises. It would 
jeopardize our nation's credit by making default a more regular 
likelihood.
  A balanced budget amendment is a good sound bite, but it is not good 
policy. The ability to borrow in a time of crisis to help our states 
and citizens is a critical tool to aid our nation during economic 
crisis. A balanced budget requirement risks substantial harm to our 
economy, to Social Security, to military and civil service retirement 
systems, to critical government activities, and to our most vulnerable 
citizens. During economic hardship, federal revenues decline and safety 
net programs become even more vital lifelines, causing deficits to 
rise. Rather than allowing the Federal Government the flexibility to 
institute a variety of economic stabilizers, a balanced budget 
amendment would force the Federal Government to cut benefits or raise 
taxes exactly when such responses are least effective and more likely 
to further weaken the economy and result in higher deficits. As Robert 
Reischauer explained in 1992, a balanced budget amendment ``would 
undermine the stabilizing role of the Federal Government.''
  I cannot fathom how policymakers would risk default and serious 
economic damage to our nation in order to make the elderly pay more for 
medicine, poor children go hungry, and low income students skip college 
in order to give that money to corporate jet owners, hedge fund agents, 
wealthy citizens who own multiple homes, and oil companies that already 
earn tens of billions of dollars in profits.
  During times of challenge, I resolutely believe that the mantle of 
responsibility for caring for the poor and struggling falls squarely on 
the shoulders of government, not primarily on the charity of individual 
citizens. In such times of hardship and strife, government leaders 
should extend help to the needy, not advance the wealth of the most 
secure. With so many of our children and youth bearing the brunt of our 
nation's economic hardship, I am committed to protecting all of 
America, not just the privileged. For these reasons, I resolutely and 
steadfastly oppose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.