OPINION:
The federal government’s financial condition is much worse than advertised.
Many people focus on the level of federal debt, which is over $38 trillion. However, that debt is just the tip of our financial iceberg. Total federal liabilities and unfunded obligations exceed $125 trillion and are growing faster than the economy. Our current level of total debt/GDP is about 123%. That is a greater debt burden than we had at the end of World War II, and the ratio is rising rather than declining, as it did after the war.
Today, more than 75% of the annual budget is on autopilot, for which we have written a blank check. Shockingly, net interest is now our second-largest and fastest-growing expense for which we get nothing.
The truth is, our federal finances have been out of control since 2002, and both political parties share the blame. In my view, we must adopt a fiscal responsibility constitutional amendment if we want to restore fiscal sanity and achieve fiscal sustainability. The debt ceiling is a bad joke, and statutory approaches to constrain the growth of the federal government and mounting debt burden haven’t stood the test of time.
A constitutional amendment is the only way to force Congress and the president to make the tough choices needed to reduce our overall debt burdens as a percentage of the economy to a lower, reasonable level over the next 10 to 15 years and have mechanisms in place to make sure it doesn’t spin out of control again.
Several types of approaches could be taken in drafting such a constitutional amendment. Some advocate for a traditional balanced budget approach like the one employed by many states. Others advocate for a principles-based balanced budget approach designed to achieve balance over a stated period of time. I and others prefer a debt/GDP-based approach because it’s pro-growth and does not dictate how best to address the numerator challenge, namely, how much of the needed actions should be focused on reducing spending versus increasing revenue.
The latter two approaches have been used successfully by other countries (e.g., Switzerland, Germany, Sweden). Irrespective of the approach employed, it must contain very limited exceptions and effective enforcement mechanisms.
There are two ways to achieve a constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution. Two-thirds of the House and Senate pass an identical proposed amendment, and then three-quarters of the states must ratify it. However, our nation’s Founders recognized that Congress may not act in connection with issues that need to be addressed, so they provided the states with the right to propose amendments.
Specifically, if two-thirds of the states file an application for a convention to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution, Congress shall call the convention. This is a nondiscretionary and ministerial duty of Congress. If a majority of the states can agree on a proposed amendment at the convention, it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
In my view, the best mode of ratification is to hold individual state conventions of delegates pledged to vote for or against any proposed amendment. That method is the closest thing our country has to a referendum of the people.
The Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, which I chair, discovered more than three years ago that, as far back as 1979, a large enough number of states had filed applications for a convention dedicated solely to proposing a balanced budget or fiscal responsibility amendment. A large enough number of active applications existed for 24 years thereafter (i.e., 1979 to 2003) and again in 2016 and 2017, yet Congress failed to call the convention.
The National Federalism Commission, which is an official interstate governmental body, began working with the House Judiciary Committee in early 2025 to help bring all the committee’s state application records up to date. Their work confirmed the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation’s findings, and the National Federalism Commission issued a related report to the Committee in September.
HCR 15, which is sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, Texas Republican, is designed to right this past wrong and call the related limited convention. I expect the states will sue Congress if it fails to act within a reasonable period of time. The issue would then have to be addressed by the Supreme Court. If that happens, it would be the biggest federalism case in the history of our great nation.
Let’s face reality. Congress is addicted to spending, deficits and debt. We must adopt a constitutional amendment if we want to restore and sustain fiscal sanity at the federal level. If Congress can achieve the necessary support to pass a credible proposed amendment, then it should do so in a timely manner. If not, Congress needs to call a limited convention and allow the states to exercise their constitutional right to do so under Article V. Doing nothing is not an option. America’s future is at stake.
• David M. Walker is a former comptroller general of the United States and chairman of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.