The idea of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget has been floating around Congress for a number of years, but it's never had the votes to get through. Now, all of a sudden, we hear that it's going to pass overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate. How come?
Maybe the Democrats are tired of being called big spenders. They know that if President Bush had wanted to cut spending because he was worried about the deficit, he could have vetoed the spending bills that crossed his desk. After all, Congress has not yet overridden any of his vetoes. Maybe the Democrats think the balanced budget amendment is a way of giving the President a taste of his own medicine because it will force him to make some unpleasant choices between higher taxes and drastic and unpopular cuts in government programs.
It's also certain that members of Congress don't want to go home in an election year without doing something to make themselves look good. Their constituents have given unmistakable signs of being disgusted with the national government. So Congress is rushing to amend the Constitution for the sake of image control.
The proposed amendment says that the government's income and outlay will have to be balanced every year, which will mean raising taxes, cutting expenditures or a combination of the two. Raising taxes will require (depending on whose version of the amendment passes) a majority of both houses or a three-fifths majority of both houses. Unbalancing the budget, except in cases of armed conflict, will also require this three-fifths majority. That sounds straightforward enough, but it raises many more questions than it answers.
For example, what makes us think a balanced budget amendment will change anything? If the President and Congress had had the guts to make the hard choices that are necessary, the country wouldn't be looking at a national debt of over $3 trillion. Merely adding words to the Constitution will not make it easier for them to cut spending or raise taxes. As a matter of fact, passing a balanced budget amendment, which will have to be ratified by the states, will allow the President and Congress to put off dealing with the deficit now. They'll have an excuse to wait a couple more years -- until they can hand the problem to somebody else. By then, of course, the country will be in much more worse shape than it is now.
And when that day comes, what will keep the new President and Congress from using the creative accounting strategies that are already familiar from the 1980s - like presenting wildly optimistic economic assumptions as hard truth, financing programs "off budget" or enacting programs now and arranging to pay for them later? If they need more hints about how to play this kind of shell game, they will be able to get them from states that already have -- and regularly evade -- balanced budget requirements.
If Congress and the President make an honest attempt to follow the terms of the amendment, there are likely to be serious constitutional problems. We don't know how to project expenses a year in advance with any accuracy; yet that's what the balanced budget amendment requires. Suppose Congress is accused of failing to comply with the amendment. Presumably it will be up to the courts to decide if the economic projection made by the Congress is constitutional, but are the courts any better qualified to make and judge economic projections than Congress? And if they find that Congress is contravening the balanced budget amendment will the members all go to jail? Will the government cease operating? Nobody can answer questions like these because nobody knows how the balanced budget amendment would work.
And what if some kind of emergency comes up? In times of recession, the government generally spends more money in order to stimulate the economy. This strategy can be expected to unbalance the budget, but it's a way of stabilizing the economy. Will we be sacrificing the kind of flexibility that makes us able to move and move quickly on this kind of thing? What about situations like the Los Angeles riots and the Chicago flood?
The country has managed very well without a balanced budget amendment for more than 200 years. Sometimes the budget has not been balanced, but over a period of two, three or four years, things have been kept in balance -- that is until the last 10 years. Now, to deal with a problem that has become serious only during the Reagan and Bush administrations, Congress and the President are trying to push through a mechanical solution, a constitutional amendment that is generally viewed as unenforceable -- and dangerous if it can be enforced.
Voters are worried about the country. They are worried about what the savings-and-loan bailout is costing; they are worried about a national debt that continues to grow and already eats up one-seventh of our national budget simply to pay the interest. But a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will not solve these problems. The people who are rushing to pass it are trying to make themselves look good at the same time as they give themselves an excuse to do nothing about a problem that is threatening the future of our country. Instead of trying to pull the wool over they eyes of the American public, why don't they start doing their job? Why don't they offer us some real leadership? Now.