Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) reports on the Hill’s Congress Blog that she has proposed a Balanced Budget Amendment. The out clauses seem kind of weak:

This Balanced Budget Amendment contains many safeguards to ensure the necessary flexibility in case of war, natural disaster or an economic downturn. The balanced budget requirement is waived during times of military conflict, and it can be waived at anytime with a three-fifths vote in the House and Senate. Also, cuts in Social Security benefits could not be used to balance the budget.

The amendment text talked about “declared” war, so I assume this means the War on Terror doesn’t count. Frankly, this might be a good thing. :)

Social Security benefits should only be a sacred cow for those who have no time to finance their retirement in other ways. It should not be left out of the balancing equation, especially when entitlements and debt interest are the fastest growing items in the federal budget.

If passed, the three-fifths vote in the House and Senate will ensure that this amendment is never in force. If we could trust three-fifths of the House and Senate not to spend more than it takes in, we wouldn’t need this amendment. I’m glad at least someone is talking about this, even if it is lip service.