New Bill of Rights

Rejected category · Depth: collapses under trade-offs

Balanced Budget

Requiring a balanced federal budget draws 84% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats in the abstract (Economist/YouGov, 2026), but support fell to 31% in the one poll that named entitlement cuts (Fox News, 2011).

Rejected 2026-08-06. A rejection is not a judgment that the issue doesn't matter — it is a judgment that the category cannot pass the full-spectrum test today. The evidence, the test, and the path back are below.

The proposal

The idea is a constitutional rule that federal spending may not exceed federal revenue in a fiscal year. Every serious draft adds machinery, and there the drafts diverge. Most let a supermajority of each chamber — three-fifths or two-thirds — authorize a deficit, usually with an exception for war.1 Some also require two-thirds of each chamber to raise taxes or the debt limit.2 Advocates also pursue an Article V convention limited to the subject; by their own counts, 27 or 28 of the required 34 states have live applications.3

The evidence

The abstract question clears the bar in every independent poll we found. Asked about amending the Constitution to “require the federal budget to be balanced each year,” 72% of Americans were in favor and 7% opposed — 84% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats, and 65% of independents (Economist/YouGov, 2026).4

Democrats: 68% 68% Dem Republicans: 84% 84% Rep Independents: 65% 65% Ind bipartisan floor · 68% (Democrats)
Require the federal budget to be balanced each year — Economist/YouGov, 2026 (abstract question)

Other abstract readings agree. “Require a balanced federal budget” drew 69% — 77% of Republicans, 69% of Democrats, 62% of independents (Cato Institute/Morning Consult, 2026; Cato holds a position on the amendment, though the fieldwork is Morning Consult’s).5 A forced-choice question on “a balanced budget within 10 years” drew 80% — 83% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, 77% of independents (Harvard CAPS/Harris, 2023).6 An advocacy-commissioned poll found 70% — 74% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats (McLaughlin & Associates for America’s New Majority Project, 2022).7

Only one poll on record has named a trade-off (Fox News, 2011). In the abstract, 72% favored — 82% of Republicans, 62% of Democrats. Told that balancing the budget would mean “major spending cuts” to “entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security,” 31% favored and 63% opposed; 79% of Democrats opposed, and Republicans split 47% to 46%. Told it would mean “major tax increases,” 62% opposed (no party breakdown published).8

The programs a binding rule would reach have been polled repeatedly since, and both parties reject cutting them: 79% say Social Security benefits “should not be reduced in any way” — 77% of Republicans, 83% of Democrats (Pew Research Center, 2024).9 Reducing benefits drew 6% in favor, 79% opposed (AP-NORC, 2023).10 Majorities of Republicans oppose “major cuts” to Social Security (73%), Medicare (64%), and Medicaid (55%) (KFF, 2025).11

The amendment has never carried both chambers: the Senate fell two votes short in 1995 (65–35; Democrats 14–33) and one in 1997 (66–34; Democrats 11–34),12 and House Democratic support fell from 72 votes in 1995 to 25 in 2011 and 7 in 2018.13

The test it failed

The bipartisan floor on the abstract question is 68% (Democrats, Economist/YouGov 2026): Strong. That is not the number a drafted amendment would face. On the conditioned question the floor is Weak: 31% overall, 79% of Democrats opposed, Republicans 47% to 46% (Fox News, 2011).8 Two failure modes apply.

Depth. Support fell roughly 40 points, from 72% to 31%, once the trade-off was named.8 That is one poll, fifteen years old, but every modern program-level poll above points the same way.91011 The abstract number rests on a belief that no trade-off exists: 64% of a 2025 advocacy sample agreed the budget can be balanced without raising taxes or cutting benefits.14

Asymmetric coalition. The two halves of any binding rule each lose a party. Benefit cuts lose Democrats (79% opposed) and half of Republicans (Fox News, 2011).8 Tax increases lose Republicans: 69% of Republicans want the deficit cut only or mostly through spending cuts, while 57% of Democrats want an equal mix of tax increases and cuts (Gallup, 2012),15 and a Medicare tax on households earning over $400,000 drew 42% of Republicans against 75% of Democrats (AP-NORC, 2023).10

The why-an-amendment test is arguably met — Congress cannot bind future Congresses by statute, and the 1985 statutory attempt did not survive the courts intact16 — and is not why the category failed. But a working balanced-budget rule is thresholds, exemptions, and enforcement, which our mission assigns to legislation.

Framings we tested

  • Unconditioned “require a balanced budget”: 68% of Democrats (Economist/YouGov 2026), 69% (Cato/Morning Consult 2026), 79% (Harvard/Harris 2023).456 Clears the bar; measures approval of the outcome, not the rule.
  • “Balanced within 10 years”: 83% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats (Harvard/Harris 2023, forced choice).6 Same limitation.
  • Conditioned on entitlement cuts: 31% overall, 79% of Democrats opposed (Fox News 2011).8 Fails.
  • Conditioned on tax increases: 62% opposed, no party split published (Fox News 2011); the method data above make the Republican floor the binding one.81510 Fails.
  • Balance “without raising taxes or cutting benefits” by reducing waste: 64% agree it is possible (America’s New Majority Project, advocacy poll, 2025).14 A claim about arithmetic, not a rule; it cannot be drafted.

No framing both clears the bar and describes an enforceable constitutional rule.

The path back

The category reopens on a modern, independent, split-sample poll that names the mechanism — a balanced-budget amendment even if it meant a specified mix of cuts to major programs and tax increases, with a supermajority waiver for war or recession — and clears roughly 60% in both parties, the Democratic number surviving the benefit-cut condition and the Republican number the tax condition. A weaker signal would be a rerun of the 2011 experiment with a drop under 15 points in each party. The poll is on our commissioned-polling list.

Sources

  1. H.J.Res. 17 (119th Congress), introduced January 13, 2025, requires a two-thirds roll-call vote of each chamber to authorize a deficit and requires the President to submit a balanced budget — Congress.gov, H.J.Res. 17. ↩

  2. H.J.Res. 2 (119th Congress), introduced January 3, 2025, bars any increase in the public-debt limit and requires a two-thirds roll-call vote of each chamber for any revenue-raising bill — Congress.gov, H.J.Res. 2. ↩

  3. The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force claimed 28 live state applications in 2017, counting unrescinded 1970s–80s applications — CRS R44435, The Article V Convention: Current Developments (Nov. 2017); a January 2026 op-ed by Rep. James Comer puts the count at 27, seven short of 34 — Comer, Jan. 2026. ↩

  4. Economist/YouGov, June 13–15, 2026 (1,549 adult citizens): “Require the federal budget to be balanced each year,” 72% favor / 7% oppose / 21% not sure; Republicans 84%, Democrats 68%, independents 65% — YouGov article; crosstabs, table 13C. ↩ ↩2

  5. Cato Institute / Morning Consult, June 25–26, 2026 (2,253 adults; item asked of a 1,229 half-sample): “Require a balanced federal budget,” 69% support / 13% oppose / 18% don’t know; Republicans 77%, Democrats 69%, independents 62%; same battery: 73% for a right to health care, 69% for campaign-spending limits — crosstabs, table CATO20_1; Cato summary. ↩ ↩2

  6. Harvard CAPS/Harris, July 19–20, 2023 (2,068 registered voters): “a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget within 10 years,” 80% support / 20% oppose (forced choice); Republicans 83%, Democrats 79%, independents 77% — crosstabs, table 143. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. McLaughlin & Associates for America’s New Majority Project (Gingrich-affiliated), January 13–18, 2022 (1,000 likely voters): amendment “requiring congress to pass a balanced federal budget each year,” 70% support / 13% oppose; Republicans 74%, Democrats 67%, independents 70% — ANMP report, Feb. 4, 2022; July 21–24, 2025 (2,000 registered voters): 69% support / 12% oppose; report party chart Republicans 80%, Democrats 62%, independents 65% — ANMP report, Aug. 2025. ↩

  8. Fox News poll, June 26–28, 2011 (912 registered voters; Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R)): abstract 72% favor / 20% oppose, Republicans 82%, Democrats 62%; if balancing the budget meant “major spending cuts” to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, 31% favor / 63% oppose, Democrats 79% opposed, Republicans 47% favor / 46% oppose; if it meant “major tax increases,” 62% oppose — Fox News. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. Pew Research Center, April 8–14, 2024 (8,709 adults): 79% say Social Security benefits “should not be reduced in any way,” including 77% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats — Pew, June 2024; fieldwork. ↩ ↩2

  10. AP-NORC, March 16–20, 2023 (1,081 adults): reduce Social Security benefits 6% favor / 79% oppose; raise full-benefit age from 67 to 70, 10% / 75%; raise Medicare age from 65 to 67, 15% / 70%; raise taxes on households over $400,000 for Medicare, 58% / 23%, with 75% of Democrats in favor and 42% of Republicans — AP-NORC topline; AP write-up via PBS. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. KFF Health Tracking Poll, April 8–15, 2025 (1,380 adults): oppose “major cuts” to Social Security 84%, Medicare 79%, Medicaid 76%; among Republicans 73%, 64%, 55% — KFF. ↩ ↩2

  12. Senate, March 2, 1995, H.J.Res. 1: 65–35 (Republicans 51–2, Democrats 14–33) — senate.gov; Senate, March 4, 1997, S.J.Res. 1: 66–34 (Republicans 55–0, Democrats 11–34) — senate.gov. ↩

  13. House, January 26, 1995, H.J.Res. 1: 300–132 (Republicans 228–2, Democrats 72–129) — Clerk roll 51; November 18, 2011, H.J.Res. 2: 261–165 (Republicans 236–4, Democrats 25–161) — Clerk roll 858; April 12, 2018, H.J.Res. 2: 233–184 (Republicans 226–6, Democrats 7–178) — Clerk roll 138. ↩

  14. America’s New Majority Project, July 21–24, 2025: 64% agree it is “possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes or cutting benefits in popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security”; 72% agree waste and fraud reduction could save “hundreds of billions” without cutting benefits — ANMP release; topline, Q67–69. ↩ ↩2

  15. Gallup, November 9–12, 2012: 69% of Republicans chose only-or-mostly spending cuts to reduce the deficit; 57% of Democrats chose an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts — Gallup. ↩ ↩2

  16. In the 112th Congress, H.J.Res. 1 paired a three-fifths deficit waiver with a two-thirds vote for revenue increases and an 18%-of-GDP spending cap; H.J.Res. 2, the version that reached the floor, dropped both; earlier votes (Senate 69–31 in 1982 and 66–34 in 1986; House 280–153 in 1992 and 271–153 in 1994) fell short of two-thirds; the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985 had its automatic sequestration mechanism struck in Bowsher v. Synar (1986) and was reworked by statute in 1987 — CRS R41907, A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options. ↩

← All rejected categories