Where I Stand: Wisdom of balanced budget amendment is questioned

Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

SUSAN DENTZER, writing in U.S. News & World Report magazine, says that if the public wants a balanced budget, it's not necessary to amend the Constitution. Dentzer writes: "(I)f the public wants a balanced budget, it can probably get it without a constitutional amendment, since both Clinton and Congress endorse reaching that goal by 2002. So, instead of rewriting the Constitution, why not vote them out of office if they refuse to practice sound fiscal policy -- based on their judgment, the nation's needs and the economic exigencies of the time?"

The conservative, business-driven Wall Street Journal seldom agrees with Democrat President Bill Clinton. This time they do. The editors of the WSJ believe that the congressional desire for a balanced budget amendment is a 'boondoggle" and a "flake-out." They write: "The notion of amending the Constitution to outlaw budget deficits is silly on any number of counts. Politically, it's empty symbolism. Legally, it clutters the Constitution with dubious prose. Today's lesson, though, concerns economics and accounting. You can't measure economic rectitude by any one number, let alone the "deficit," however defined, let alone the deficit projections the proposals will inevitably involve in practice. The attempt to enshrine such a number in the Constitution is bound to prove a snare and a delusion."

USA Today newspaper points out several loopholes in the proposed balanced budget amendment, then concludes: "But even if Congress had left no loopholes, the amendment would be a mistake.

"A balanced budget makes sense when the economy is humming and everyone's working. But in an economic downturn, a little federal borrowing can stimulate the economy and help the jobless pay their bills. Failure to provide such stimulus is often blamed for causing the Depression.

"A loose amendment won't balance the budget. And a strict one would be dangerous. So why take that chance?"

It doesn't take great minds or even a touch of genius to realize that the balanced budget amendment now being considered in Congress is nothing more than feel-good legislation. If it's passed, then a supporter can go home and tell voters that he or she voted for the amendment, because those other 534 members of Congress had to be restrained. Maybe one or two of them might admit that they didn't trust themselves and, therefore, voted to protect the taxpayers from them. I doubt many will admit to this.

Former Rep. Tim Penny, R-Minn., was one of the first and strongest advocates of a balanced budget amendment. Penny felt so strongly about the "politics as usual" atmosphere in Washington that, after 12 years in Congress, he went back home and refused to seek re-election.

In Penny's book "Common Cents," even he admits that seeking such an amendment reflects upon the weaknesses of the members of Congress. He writes: "The balanced budget amendment is not the answer to all of our budget problems. But it's the best place to start. Congress has proven its unwillingness to cut spending, and a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget is, sadly, the only remaining way to encourage this behavior. I do not believe a majority in Congress would defy a balanced budget amendment. The amendment would force lawmakers and the constituents they represent to face the tough decisions required to balance the federal budget. Under these conditions, no one could ignore the need for deep spending cuts and, quite possibly, higher taxes. Congress should have the courage to confront these choices without a constitutional amendment. But it doesn't. That's why we need it."

Supporting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is certainly a sign of weakness on the part of many lawmakers. It also appears to be based on the belief that future members of that distinguished body will also be spendthrifts unless held back by the Constitution. This ignores the fact that the budget gap has been driven down in recent years because of public pressure and a healthy economy. These same voters can bring additional pressure on those who fail to participate in further decreasing that gap. Why do the supporters of this amendment sell themselves and the voters short?

Haven't President Clinton and the Republican and Democrat leadership agreed that the budget will be balanced by 2002? Deep down inside, don't the political leaders believe this can be accomplished and, therefore, an amendment is unnecessary? An amendment that probably wouldn't be passed by the necessary 38 states much short of 2002.

In addition to passing a very questionable and unnecessary amendment to our U.S. Constitution, I'm getting a message that congressional representatives say they don't honestly believe they will balance the budget by 2002. In other words, despite the great fiscal restraint shown recently, they don't truly believe what they are telling us about balancing the budget in the next five years. If they do believe it will be done, there's no need to amend the Constitution.

No wonder the American public is questioning its ability to separate smoke and mirrors from truth in politics.