Federal debt is out of control. It drives up inflation and interest costs. It throws a wet blanket on opportunity. It is a clear and present danger to the American Dream.
Last year’s $2 trillion in new borrowing pushed total debt above $40 trillion, far beyond each year’s domestic economic production. Higher interest rates swell deficits and debt even faster, and economic growth alone cannot credibly prevent a debt crisis from shattering our prosperity, our security, and perhaps even our republic.
Fortunately, some take this challenge seriously and in time for Congress to prevent disaster. One is Ohio’s U.S. Senator Jon Husted, who with Representative Nathaniel Moran of Texas has proposed an exceptionally thoughtful proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Husted-Moran BBA is simple, just like existing provisions of the Constitution:
- Spending and revenue should balance over time, not necessarily every year.
- Balance can exclude interest. This requires much less policy change than full balance, but it is enough to stabilize the debt burden.
- 2/3 of Congress can borrow for emergencies. It should offset such debt soon after.
- 10 years to reach balance after the 38th state legislature ratifies.
Balancing over the medium term instead of every year is especially important because overall revenue collection bounces around. Smooth and predictable statutory budget goals to implement a BBA can help Congress focus on adding value for us, not just chasing a moving target. These targets can adjust for revenue changes, for programs that ramp up during tough times, and for emergency response.
When conditions are ripe, this Principles-based BBA is poised to attract broad, bipartisan support in Congress and in state legislatures. The people are already there. A 2023 poll (p. 57) found that 80 percent of Americans support “a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget within 10 years.”
The Husted-Moran Principles-based BBA improves substantially on the BBA proposals that have gotten votes in Congress on both policy and consensus-building grounds. It includes no problematic provisions and includes only what is necessary.
A contrary example came in March 2026. The U.S. House voted on a BBA with features that appealed to Republicans but not Democrats. It only got a bare majority of 211-207 instead of the two-thirds needed.
The various BBA proposals that former Senator Sherrod Brown once backed were also full of problems. Brown cosponsored and voted for versions based on volatile annual balance. Funding for defense, veterans’ affairs, most health programs, infrastructure, and much more would be at the mercy of fluctuating revenue. This uncertainty would undermine sound planning and efficiency.
The Brown-backed versions would also completely fail to address the federal government’s structural challenges, including the impending insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds around 2032. They could upend the balance of powers: a constitutional requirement for the president to submit an annual budget request could create a foundation to shift even more authority from Congress to the White House. The Brown-backed BBAs could even perversely encourage war because each would waive balance requirements without limiting the imbalance to the contingency, automatically during war or with just a simple majority for other military conflicts
Let us return to Sen. Husted’s well-designed proposal for a balanced budget amendment. It leaves most details to regular laws, like the budget targets mentioned above. It would simply restore the norm for some kind of balance and sustainable budgeting, give Congress more than a decade to get there, and create an enforceable supermajority for borrowing.
Attacks on Sen. Husted’s proposed BBA reveal bad faith or ignorance. Those claims would apply to some degree to a full, annual balance BBA with no possibility of revenue adjustments. Those conditions do not describe the Principles-based BBA’s allowance for medium-term balance, excluding interest, in which all spending and revenue options are on the table.
Congress has big decisions to make in the coming years. How to increase opportunity and economic growth. How to protect the most vulnerable Americans. Who can bear the burdens of necessary changes. A well-crafted BBA does not force any particular choices.
Ultimately, however, these decisions should be made carefully and often with phase-ins. Ignoring the government’s challenges or pretending they don’t exist is not courage. Refusing to take responsibility means that changes will come suddenly, without democratic deliberation, and amid turmoil.
Sen. Husted and Rep. Moran’s proposed BBA is part of a constellation of long-overdue upgrades to power up Congress into the effective, responsible legislature we need and deserve. Leaders like them push our government to be better.
Americans are sick and tired of a flailing Congress dragging us toward default. It’s time to rally behind those who are ready and willing to get the federal government serving us again.
Go deeper:
- Fiscal Democracy in America: How a Balanced Budget Amendment Can Restore Sound Governance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2025)
