Posted on 04/04/2026 9:32:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
On March 18, 2026, the House of Representatives voted on H.J. Res. 139, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. The roll call was 211-207. Every Republican voted yes. Every Democrat voted no, save one — a defection that will presumably not be celebrated at the next caucus retreat. Under suspension of the rules, passage required 291 votes. The final count was 80 votes short. This is not a near miss. It is a structural diagnosis rendered as a procedural vote.
The same week, gross national debt crossed $39 trillion — $39,016,762,910,245.14 on March 17. That milestone arrived five months after the $38 trillion mark. The velocity of American indebtedness is a compound interest problem, compounding at a rate that would trigger intervention in any of the private credit structures I have spent thirty years analyzing. And the party with enough votes to impose structural limits declined, unanimously, to use them.
H.J. Res. 139, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), capped annual spending at the three-year rolling average of prior revenues, adjusted for inflation and population growth. Debt service was explicitly excluded from the spending cap. Emergency and war declarations triggered supermajority waivers. New taxes or rate increases required a two-thirds vote in both chambers. The Democratic talking point — that this amendment would gut Social Security and Medicare — crumbles on contact with the actual text. The waiver provisions are there. The flexibility is there. What is absent is unlimited borrowing authority. That, apparently, is the one thing that is non-negotiable.
Forty-nine states balance their budgets. When California — which governs with the fiscal restraint of a college student with a new credit card — is at least constitutionally required to make its books balance,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
These projections assume nothing goes wrong. No recession. No pandemic. No war. This is the federal budget equivalent of a blood test showing structural organ failure while the patient insists he feels fine and just needs more time.
Social Security’s retirement trust fund is depleted by 2032. The Highway Trust Fund by 2028. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance fund around 2040. These are CBO baselines.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has warned repeatedly that this trajectory exacerbates inflation and leaves the country structurally exposed to external shocks. House Budget Committee chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said on the House floor that Washington’s spending “has jeopardized our economy, our security, our leadership in the world.” He was right. He was also unable to get a two-thirds majority to do anything about it.
Not difficult to understand.
Democrats are elected by poor people
that don’t produce much, by choice.
In today’s world most idiot jobs
can be done by robots.
No need for a lot of Democrats,
No need for Democrats that didn’t
go to school.
I can design and repair robots.
They can’t.
Democrats are VERY afraid.
Democrats takes money away from
people that produce things.
It used to be called charity, now
it is taxes.
Democrats are the largest portion
of the world’s population.
Remember the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985? It was offered because the call for a Convention Of States was getting to close for Congress to ignore . So they passed this worthless bill as if it would solve anything. The ploy worked: the call for a Convention Of States ran out of steam. Only a Convention Of States has any chance of balancing the budget. Nobody gets reelected based on how much money they have saved for the taxpayers.
Can’t balance the budget when you’ve just committed the country to $2 Trillion in new debt, without Congress even getting the opportunity to represent Americans in this.
I’d love to see an Article V convention. But what bothers me is people keep trying to limit it to a balanced budget amendment. No, if they actually get one going, let anyone propose reasonable amendments. Like, congress’s first duty is to pass a budget & may not go on to other business until that is done. And at the very least Dept by Dept, if not line by line. The insane spending would stop if they really had to look at what they’re doing.
Nateman wrote: “Remember the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985? It was offered because the call for a Convention Of States was getting to close for Congress to ignore . So they passed this worthless bill as if it would solve anything. The ploy worked: the call for a Convention Of States ran out of steam. Only a Convention Of States has any chance of balancing the budget. Nobody gets reelected based on how much money they have saved for the taxpayers.”
A convention of states will solve nothing. The convention would split along the lines of this vote in congress and pass nothing.
Even if the convention passed an amendment, that amendment is only a proposed amendment and would still require ratified by three-fourths of the states. The blue states would never ratify.
Therefore, this is a waste of time.
Twotone wrote: “I’d love to see an Article V convention. But what bothers me is people keep trying to limit it to a balanced budget amendment. No, if they actually get one going, let anyone propose reasonable amendments.”
Why would the convention be limited to ‘reasonable amendments’?
Considering the number of blue states with delegations there will be proposals to repeal or restrict the 2nd Amendment, protection of LBQT+, enactment of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion provisions, etc. IOW, the blue states would propose amendments to enact their woke agenda.
Of course, none of those would pass and neither would any amendments proposed by the red states. Why bother?
Perhaps, but it could still help in getting blue reps removed from office. None of us can predict the future even if you claim you can.
Nobody can say what would actually happen. Why bother? To establish that the World does not come to an end if you have one . They wanted to have a Convention Of States before the Civil War but the effort was too little too late . The Constitution got amended by war instead . By finally having that Convention it would make it easier to avoid another Civil War because you'd have that example to fall back on.
Nateman wrote: “Perhaps, but it could still help in getting blue reps removed from office. None of us can predict the future even if you claim you can.”
You just predicted a future where blue reps are removed from office.
No where is the process for the convention to propose/pass an amendment defined. But, let’s suppose it’s a simple majority of 26 out of 50 states. Now explain how to get the necessary three-fourths of the states (38) to ratify any amendments passed at the convention.
BTW, since the states would determine their delegates, those delegations would consist of the elected politicians of those states. Why would the elected politicians of a blue state vote for any amendments you would like to see passed?
No, the only amendments those blue state delegations would vote for are things like repeal of the second amendment, DEI, citizenship for illegals, an expanded supreme court, etc. Nor would the states vote to ratify any of the amendments you would like to see pass.
Therefore a convention of the states would be a waste of time. Why bother?
Why bother? To establish the precedent. 27 Amendments have been added since 1787 . All of them introduced by Congress. Amazing how most of them handed more power to Congress! It’s about time that our individual state legislatures got into the process. Take some power back to the states for once!
Well, IF...& I know it’s a big if, we clean up voter rolls & halt vote fraud, it may be possible that some of those purple states are actually Red, & we can get across some sensible fixes to our problems. Our current politicians seem unwilling or unable to do the right thing. Why not try something else, even if we know the chances of success may be poor.
Twotone wrote: “Well, IF...& I know it’s a big if, we clean up voter rolls & halt vote fraud, it may be possible that some of those purple states are actually Red, & we can get across some sensible fixes to our problems. Our current politicians seem unwilling or unable to do the right thing. Why not try something else, even if we know the chances of success may be poor.”
It those things were to happen, you wouldn’t need a convention of the states to pass those amendments.
Second, it’s most likely those ‘current politicians’ would be the delegates to those conventions. Why would you expect them to do the ‘right thing’?
The bottom line is this: you have to change the blue states to red to accomplish anything. A con-con won’t do that.
On March 18, 2026, the House of Representatives voted on H.J. Res. 139, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
This kind of a resolution is not surprising in an election year imo.
Under suspension of the rules, passage required 291 votes.
Not sure what's going on with the suspension of rules (smoke and mirrors?), but Constitution requires resolutions for proposing new constitutional amendments to the states to pass each House by minimum 2/3 majority.
But the joke is ultimately on the very corrupt, post-16th and 17th Amendments ratification Congress that patriots desperately need to primary in 2026 because lawmakers cannot use House rules to make the Constitution's Madison Test go away.
Regarding the Madison Test, note that the 14th Congress in the time of President James Madison (4th pres.), Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had found some EXISTING tax revenues and got all happy about spending it. So Congress drafted the Bonus Bill of 1817 to use the taxpayer dollars to improve military readiness and commerce by authorizing the construction of roads and canals intended to facilitate moving troops and manufactured goods. But Congress had based the bill solely on the General Welfare Clause (GWC) which turned out to be a BIG mistake.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States [emphasis added]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
More specifically, while Madison AGREED with Congress that the bill would improve federal purpose transportation, he diplomatically clarified in his veto explanation that while the GWC authorizes Congress to tax and spend, he reminded Congress that the Constitution's drafters, Madison himself a major player, had intended for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 to limit what Congress could spend tax dollars for, no mention of roads and canals for Congress's purpose for the Bonus Bill. Madison also noted that the bonus bill didn't even pass Congress's traditional "wild card" excuse for justifying spending, the infamous "Necessary and Proper Clause."
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill
In fact, note that the only roads that the Founders expressly gave Congress the specific power to authorize are postal roads.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; It is one of a few government agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution of the United States. (non-FR)
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note Thomas Jefferson's advice on interpreting Congress's very limited peacetime powers compliments Madison's veto.
In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids. —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Again, the 16th Amendment is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime, front-ended by post-17A ratification deep state Congress, and desperately needs to be repealed imo.
<> Nobody gets reelected based on how much money they have saved for the taxpayers.<>
So true.
"...but it could still help in getting blue reps removed from office."
That's a possibility, not a prediction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.