(David Biddulph, Barry W. Poulson, William Owens) – America is staring down a fiscal abyss. With the national debt exceeding $37 trillion and rising daily, it’s apparent that Washington has lost control of the public purse. Congress continues to spend far more than it collects yearly without any meaningful plan to stop. Both parties have contributed to the growth of the debt for an astonishing 68 consecutive years, and the result is a ballooning national debt that threatens national security, Social Security and the American Dream.
So, when three voices as ideologically diverse and influential as Warren Buffett, Sen. Mike Lee and Elon Musk align on the need to rein in Washington’s spending habits constitutionally, we should all pay attention.
At the 2025 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholder Meeting, Buffett issued a blunt warning: “We are now operating at a fiscal deficit that is unsustainable … and that cannot go on forever.” He pointed out that the federal government is running a spending gap of 7 percent of GDP when a sustainable level is closer to 3 percent. More important, he lamented that Congress has no incentive to fix it.
This wasn’t Buffett’s first time raising the alarm. In 2011, he told CNBC: “I could end the deficit in five minutes … you just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.”
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah recently revived that idea, proposing a constitutional amendment to hold members of Congress accountable when spending or inflation exceeds reasonable limits. “Would you support this amendment?” he asked.
Elon Musk didn’t hesitate: “100 percent. This is the way,” he posted.
It’s not hard to understand the appeal. In today’s Washington, there is no meaningful consequence for fiscal recklessness. The incentives often encourage it. Members of Congress reward special interests with pet projects, spend freely to win short-term favor and kick the debt problem down the road, leaving future generations to pay the price.
What if we flipped the script? What if voters were empowered to impose accountability by making re-election contingent on responsible budgeting?
One proven model for such an approach already exists, although not in the United States. In 2001, Switzerland adopted what’s known as the “debt brake,” a constitutional requirement that links government spending growth to revenue trends and economic output. It was approved by 85 percent of Swiss voters, phased in responsibly, and includes flexibility during recessions or national emergencies.
The results have been remarkable. Switzerland has never cut spending, paid down debt, preserved its social safety net, maintained a top-tier credit rating, and now surpasses the United States in GDP per household by more than $70,000 for a family of four.
Could a similar mechanism work in the United States? It may be even more effective if tailored at the state level. In 18 states where citizens can propose ballot initiatives, voters could adopt constitutional amendments requiring that if federal spending (excluding Social Security and emergency expenditures) rises faster than after-tax household income, the majority-party members of Congress from that state become ineligible for the primary ballot.
Such amendments wouldn’t require congressional approval. They would reflect a grassroots effort to restore accountability and curb inflationary overspending through the states, similar to the process used by the states to secure the direct election of senators.
This idea may sound radical, but it’s rooted in the truth that no family, no business, and no government can spend beyond its means forever. Eventually, the debt becomes a drag on the economy, undermines national security, weakens the dollar, and limits the flexibility to respond to future crises.
Buffett, Lee and Musk are right to call for a bold, systemic solution. Their proposal, or a variation of it, could fundamentally change the incentives in Washington. Imagine a Congress where pet projects and pork-barrel spending come with real political risk, where lawmakers are rewarded for long-term stewardship, not short-term splurges. Where voters, not special interests, set the agenda.
Is such a transformation possible? Yes, but only if Americans demand it. The Constitution was designed to be amended when the system no longer serves the people. If not now, when is the time for a fiscal sustainability amendment, whether it’s the Buffett Rule, the Lee-Musk Amendment, or voter-approved state amendments providing term limits for inflationary overspenders?
If we want to secure a peaceful, prosperous future for our children and grandchildren, we must constitutionally impose fiscal responsibility on Congress. That follows Buffett’s advice of “changing the incentives” before it’s too late.
David Biddulph is a semiretired small-business owner and a Florida citizen initiative co-sponsor. Barry W. Poulson is professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, and on the Board of the Prosperity for US Foundation. William Owens is a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is on the Board of the Prosperity for US Foundation. This article was written for and originally published on InsideSources.com on 6/30/25. The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views.
