Balanced Budget Accountability

Full Title:
Balanced Budget Accountability Act

Summary#

This bill, the Balanced Budget Accountability Act, would tie Members of Congress’ pay and the rules for passing revenue increases to whether Congress adopts a budget that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls a “balanced budget.” Its main change is to withhold or sharply cut pay for Members if a qualifying balanced concurrent budget resolution is not adopted by set dates. It also requires a three-fifths vote in each chamber to agree to any measure that “increases revenue.”

  • Main change: If OMB does not certify that a House adopted a qualifying balanced budget by April 16 of certain years, that House’s payroll administrator must hold Members’ pay in escrow for 2026–2027 or reduce pay to $1 per year for 2028 and later years until certification.
  • Balanced budget definition: A “balanced budget” is defined (for fiscal year 2035 and each fiscal year thereafter) as a concurrent budget resolution where total outlays do not exceed total receipts and outlays are not more than 18% of projected U.S. GDP.
  • Short-term rule: For FY2026 and FY2027, pay is placed in escrow starting April 16 of the prior year until OMB certifies a balanced budget or until the end of the 119th Congress; payroll tax withholdings still apply.
  • Long-term rule: For FY2028 and later, if no certification is made by April 16 of the prior year, Members of that House would be paid at an annual rate of $1 during pay periods after that date.
  • Procedure change: Any bill, amendment, or other measure that increases revenue would require an affirmative three-fifths vote of that chamber to be agreed to.

What it means for you#

  • Members of Congress
    • Their pay could be held in escrow for parts of 2025–2027 if a certified balanced budget is not adopted by April 16 of the prior year.
    • For FY2028 and later, failure to secure certification could cut pay to $1 per year until a qualifying budget is adopted.
    • Payroll tax and other withholdings would still be applied to escrowed pay.
  • Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    • OMB must determine whether each adopted concurrent budget resolution meets the bill’s “balanced budget” definition and certify that finding to the Speaker or President pro tempore.
  • Payroll administrators and Department of the Treasury
    • House and Senate payroll offices must set up escrow accounts and follow withholding and remittance rules for amounts held there.
    • The Treasury must help payroll administrators as needed.
  • Legislative process
    • Any measure that increases revenue would need a three-fifths majority in each chamber, making it harder to pass revenue increases (for example, tax increases).
    • This change is written as a rule of each House and could be changed later by those Houses.
  • General public / taxpayers
    • This bill could affect how easily Congress raises revenue or reaches budget agreements. This could indirectly affect government services, taxes, or deficits — but the bill text does not quantify those effects.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill does not include a fiscal note or cost estimate in the supplied material.
  • Possible additional administrative costs could include:
    • Extra work for OMB to review and certify budget resolutions.
    • Payroll office costs to create and manage escrow accounts and carry out withholdings and remittances.
    • Treasury support time to assist payroll administrators.
    • Potential legal costs if the law is challenged in court.
  • Potential indirect costs (not estimated in the bill) could come from delayed budgets or changes in legislative behavior; the bill does not quantify these.

Proponents' View#

The bill’s text and findings suggest these reasons for the proposal:

  • The bill appears intended to reduce federal deficits and slow growth of the national debt by forcing Congress to adopt budgets where outlays do not exceed receipts.
  • It could be seen as holding Members of Congress financially accountable if they fail to adopt a budget the OMB deems balanced.
  • Requiring a supermajority to increase revenue could be viewed as a rule to make tax or revenue increases harder, which proponents might see as promoting fiscal restraint.
  • The escrow mechanism and certification by OMB provide a concrete trigger and administrative steps to enforce the rule described in the bill.

Opponents' View#

Based on the bill’s design, these are reasonable concerns or criticisms someone might raise:

  • One concern is that the bill’s definition of “balanced budget” refers explicitly to fiscal year 2035 and later; it is unclear whether the same 18% of GDP cap applies to fiscal years before 2035 or how OMB should treat earlier years. The text is ambiguous on timing.
  • The escrow-release-at-end-of-Congress approach for 2026–2027 may reduce the immediate financial impact on Members (because withheld pay is released at the end of the Congress), which raises questions about how strong a deterrent the escrow is in practice.
  • Reducing pay to $1 for a whole year (for 2028 onward) could raise legal or constitutional questions about altering compensation for legislators; the bill attempts to address the Twenty-seventh Amendment concern via escrow for earlier years, but legal uncertainty could remain.
  • Requiring a three-fifths majority to increase revenue may make it harder to raise taxes or other revenue, which could limit Congress’s options for deficit reduction and could increase the likelihood of budget gridlock.
  • Administrative and legal burdens: OMB certification, escrow management, and potential litigation could create new government costs and delays that the bill does not estimate.
  • The bill does not detail how disputes over OMB’s certification would be resolved, leaving procedures unclear.