"Balanced Budget Amendment"

This week, Republicans in Congress are holding a vote on their so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" -- a scheme that nonpartisan economic experts say would be "catastrophic" for our economy.

CORE MESSAGE

Our leaders should govern based on sound policy, not sound bites.

Connect: America's budget priorities should reflect our values and common sense.

Define: Washington Republicans' so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" sounds nice, but it would be catastrophic for our economy. It would just make it harder to put Americans back to work in hard times.

Discredit: They say they want government to operate like a family budget. Well, families take out mortgages to buy homes, use credit cards to cover expenses in between paychecks, and get loans to send their kids to college.

Illustrate: This reckless scheme would mean our government CAN'T operate like a household. It would force layoffs for millions of Americans during bad times and keep millionaire tax giveaways that got us here in the first place.

Contrast: The best way to deal with our debt is to put Americans back to work. Our leaders should govern based on sound policy, not sound bites.

Tweet:  GOP BBA may sound good, but it's catastrophically bad for American jobs. US budget should be built on sound policy, not sound bites.

ATTACKS AND RESPONSES

"The Balanced Budget Amendment is a simple way to fix the debt -- it's realistic, makes sense, and is good for the country."

• Simple does not mean good. In fact, Washington Republicans' so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" would mean "catastrophic" harm to our economy during bad times and slower economic growth in good times.
• If this reckless, ideological scheme had been in place before the recession, 15 million more Americans would be out of work and the unemployment rate would be double today.
• Our leaders should govern based on sound policy, not sound bites.

"We're spending too much -- we need to cut more spending."

• Washington Republicans' so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" would force layoffs for millions of Americans who are already working harder and harder for less and less.
• If they were serious about deficits, they wouldn't have fought so hard for the Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars that led to the record deficits we're dealing with today.
• The WORST way to handle the deficit is to put more Americans OUT of work. So let's get rid of deficit-busting tax giveaways for millionaires who don't create jobs and big corporations that send our jobs overseas -- and use the money to put Americans back on the job.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

• Nobel Laureates and leading economists strongly oppose a so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment," warning that it would require exactly the opposite of what our economy needs during a recession.
• Even a top economist who served in the Reagan White House calls the proposal "quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment" he has ever seen.
• The so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" that every Republican in the Senate has endorsed would have made all of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan's budgets unconstitutional.
• A constitutional amendment is not needed to balance the budget. Under President Clinton, we didn't just get balanced budgets: we actually got budget surpluses, paid down our debt, told millionaires and big corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, and got millions of new jobs and strong economic growth.
• Many of the politicians pushing for a so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" today admit that they saw the eight years under Bush as a period in which it was "standard practice not to pay for things" because they thought "deficits don't matter."

 We develop messaging by aggregating, analyzing and distilling polling, tested messaging, and expert recommendations, and monitoring the media to identify what is and isn't working. See here for some of the experts and organizations we draw on.