But imagine if we'd managed to pass one at any point in the last 30 years. It changes everything. The trick is to pass it without the supramajority for taxes or other gimmicks that will give all Democrats an excuse to oppose it. Draft it so that you look terrible if you oppose it, and you just might get the necessary votes in Congress. Count on the willingness of politicians to take the easy way out by voting for something without short-term consequences. And how do you oppose it? After all, it doesn't demand a balacned budget for five years. Of course, to hit that number five years down the road, you'd have to start cutting things pretty quickly....But the amendment itself at least sounds uncontroversial.
It's been tried before, sort of, but always just got buried as a "symbolic" measure. But if we tie it -- and only it --to a debt ceiling increase, we force attention on the idea. It has overwhelming support among voters, and has the virtue of being philosophically linked to the debt ceiling in the first place. We look incredible responsible by lifting the ceiling, but recognizing that unlimited deficits can't continue. It is a perfect selling point.
Again, the problem is that we're just reaching for too much right now, and something that appears so limited and unsexy just doesn't seem that important.