The Balanced Budget Amendment put forth by House Republicans last week failed to pass its Friday vote. At 261 “yeas” to 165 “nays,” the measure came up just 23 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution for ratifying an amendment.

Many critics have argued that the push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution was merely symbolic. Even if the House had managed to carry the measure, it would still have had to face a Senate vote before being passed along to the various state legislatures for ratification.

To be generous to the bill’s proponents, it was definitely a long shot in the current Congress. And it missed.

The amendment failed, surprisingly, amid considerable public support. According to a July 18-20 CNN/ORC International poll, nearly three in four Americans supported the passage of a balanced-budget amendment. 60 percent of those polled also believed that a balanced budget amendment was the only way to control the deficit. Given that spending has continued at an alarming rate since then, it is doubtful that those numbers have decreased.

Some accused the amendment’s supporters of hypocrisy, pointing to the budget surplus coming out of the Clinton administration that collapsed under the succeeding Republican administration. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer even went as far as to tell Republicans to practice what they preach. “It will take no courage to vote for this amendment, but it will take courage to balance our budget by paying for what we buy.”

But the most important reason that most Democrats opposed the bill is the fear that it would constrict federal spending. In the words of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, “I am addicted to saving lives. I am addicted to making sure that Social Security is not violently cut by the balanced budget amendment.”

Jackson’s words sum up one of the left’s major arguments: things are so bad economically that the government cannot afford to not spend money.

Keynesian economic theory, which underpins most economic policies advocated by the left in Washington, argues that in times of economic decline, the government needs to be more active with spending policies. Government spending, they argue, fills in the gaps and keeps the economy moving forward until the private sector recovers.

This kind of thinking inspired not only President Obama’s stimulus package, but also several other big-spending bills passed throughout his administration. This kind of thinking, however, is also the reason that President Obama is set to outspend the whole of George W. Bush’s administration by next spring.

It is true that government spending can keep GDP activity high and prevent many major economic markers from dropping very far. And it is also true that many people benefit from welfare programs like Social Security. But to then argue that such spending is actually a form of economic stimulus, as the administration tried to argue with food stamps last year, is patently absurd.

Keynesian economic policy is sort of like drinking alcohol in the winter with the hope that you will get warmer. Sure, you might feel warm, but it’s actually just the numbing effect of the alcohol reducing your sense of temperature. If you stay outside long enough, you’ll still get hypothermia or frostbite because you are still very, very cold. And very drunk.

Government spending during a recession makes things look a lot better than they are. But unless the private sector gets going again, all the spending does is make us feel better about the situation. The economy, in reality, is still in very bad shape.

President Obama’s administration has simply not been a friend of American business, save for the ones that donated to his campaign or market themselves as being a part of the green energy sector. His administration’s policies have placed immense regulatory and economic burdens on American business-owners.

But instead of acknowledging this, the President has argued in recent weeks that American businesses have gotten “lazy” about being competitive internationally and attracting jobs.

The rhetoric makes sense given Obama’s policies. Lazy and immoral businesses obviously can’t be trusted to save the economy, so the government has to step in. But with record-breaking levels of spending, Obama’s rhetoric will soon be the only thing left propping up America’s massive budget.

And talk, as the saying goes, is cheap.

The balanced budget amendment was not the coward’s way out as Steny Hoyer suggested. Rather, it was and still is a necessary and permanent step toward tackling the deficit. By limiting government spending, it directly challenged the Keynesian economic theory that is dominating the current crop of politicians in the White House. It would have forced Congress to consider policies that don’t merely fill economic holes, but rather encourage sustainable growth and private-sector expansion.

So much for that attempt to tie down Washington’s spending. Guess we’ll be hitting the economic sauce for a while longer.