Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 28, 1995 TAG: 9501310038
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The Associated Press interviewed nearly 300 legislators across the nation Thursday and Friday, and found most ready to ratify what would be the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But while some legislators predicted quick, enthusiastic passage - it will pass ``like grain through a goose,'' crowed Utah House Minority Leader Frank Pignanelli, a Democrat - others said their states were wary of crimping the flow of federal dollars.
By the legislators' assessments, the measure appears likely to be ratified in 32 states, including Virginia. It's likely to lose in two, New York and Vermont, and faces uncertain prospects in the remaining 16.
The amendment, requiring the federal government to balance its ledgers in all peacetime fiscal years, passed the House of Representatives on Thursday and now goes to the Senate.
Its passage is far from certain there. If it does pass, it would be sent to the state legislatures, and would need to pass 38 to be ratified.
There is a seven-year time limit for ratification. At least one state, Idaho, would need at least two years for passage because all such amendments require a vote of the people. Other states appear likely to pass the measure within days of any Senate approval.
All states but Vermont require their own budgets to be balanced, and many have long called on the federal government to do the same. But even many legislators who philosophically support the idea of balanced budgets are worried about the effect the amendment could have on the states.
Marcus Gaspard, the Democratic majority leader of the Washington state Senate, spoke for many when he said he would vote for the balanced budget amendment only if he could be sure Congress wouldn't balance the budget by giving ``unfunded mandates''to states.
Unfunded mandates are laws requiring the states to provide services, but providing no federal money to do so. The U.S. Senate passed a bill Friday designed to sharply curtail the practice; the House is debating the issue.
``There is a bipartisan mood out there that we'd all like a balanced budget, but we don't want to be part of a shell game for that to be accomplished,'' Gaspard said.
President Clinton and U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich support both the balanced budget amendment and the companion bill limiting unfunded mandates. No one knows precisely what effect a balanced budget amendment would have on the states. One expert warned that it could be disastrous.
``I think it would create a severe fiscal crisis for the states,'' said Steven Gold, director of the Center for the Study of the States in Albany, N.Y. ``It'll turn back the clock to where we were before the New Deal.''
But Gold acknowledged that the impact would depend largely on how much the federal government relaxed its mandates on the states, and how much it cut strictly federal programs such as defense.
State governments depend heavily on the federal government. In 1993, the 50 state governments spent a total of $631 billion. Of that, nearly one-third - $170 billion - came straight from the federal government.
According to one analysis, the balanced budget amendment would require the federal government to reduce spending by $319 billion.
by CNB