Press Releases

Today, at the House Judiciary markup of H.J. Res 1, the Republican balanced budget constitutional amendment, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), offered an amendment that would exempt Medicare from the draconian budget proposal.

H.J. Res. 1 would amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget and a super majority vote of both houses in order to run a deficit, increase taxes, raise the debt limit, or spend more than 18% of the GDP in any fiscal year.  It would require that the budget be balanced as early as fiscal year 2018, two years earlier than the Republican Study Committee budget, and more than 20 years sooner than the Ryan budget recently passed by the House.  In order to achieve balance without increasing revenues, it would mandate cuts even more draconian than any considered by the House.

     “Why are we dredging up yet another old and discredited idea,” Conyers asked.  “Congress considered and rejected a similar balanced budget amendment back in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.  Look, this amendment was a bad idea then, and it still is a bad idea today. What this resolution would do is to write into the Constitution rules requiring extreme and destructive budgetary choices rejected by Democrats and Republicans alike. It would require us to slash Medicare far more deeply than the Ryan budget by privatizing Medicare, raising its eligibility age from 65 to 67, and increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70.

     “This measure would inevitably shift the real economic burdens for cutting the federal deficit onto the backs of the states, cities and towns, and onto the backs of our Nation’s most vulnerable: the elderly, the young, the disabled. It would make it virtually impossible to repeal special tax breaks for the wealthy or big oil and gas producers, but it would allow Congress to destroy Medicare or veterans’ hospitals with a simple voice vote.

     “There is simply no other way to balance the budget given the restrictions in the proposed constitutional amendment, and proponents believe it is easier to hide behind generalities about balancing the budget than to acknowledge their plans directly.  This would also be the first time in our nation’s history that we amended the constitution to allow congress to do something it already has the power to do – balance the budget.

     “I offered my amendment, because I believe that the promise of Medicare should be protected, just as they want to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent.  By rejecting this amendment, they have demonstrated – as they did with the recent budget votes — that they believe that Medicare is fair game.  The American people must understand what their proposed Balanced Budget Amendment means.  Fortunately, the sponsors have made it abundantly clear.

Despite the efforts of Mr. Conyers and other Democratic Members, the Medicare exemption amendment failed by a recorded vote of 9-17.

###