doesn't seem like it was comp[letely ignored, they voted on it a couple of times. is that what you call ignored ?
Balanced Budget Amendment, if approved by Congress and ratified by the states, would forbid Congress to appropriate more money than the federal government receives in revenues. This requirement could be waived (in wartime for example) by a three-fifths vote of Congress. The amendment would also require a three-fifths vote to raise taxes. In 1997, during the 105th Congress, the amendment failed by one vote in the Senate, just as it had in the 104th Congress, when Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, a Republican, voted "No," drawing the wrath of conservatives in the Senate and nationwide. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a large margin in both instances.
Proponents argue that without the Balanced Budget Amendment Congress will be unable to resist deficit spending; opponents argue that it would hamstring Congress unnecessarily, especially in times of national emergency. While it failed to send a balanced budget amendment to the states, the 105th Congress did approve the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, signed into law by President William J. Clinton on 5 August 1997, which included a host of spending initiatives and tax credits. Sub-sequent to the act's passage, the federal government ran budget surpluses through the remaining years of the 1990s. |
