Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, July 13, 1990 TAG: 9007130680
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES J. KILPATRICK
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
A hundred-odd sponsors, led by Charles W. Stenholm, D-Texas, have the same laudable goal in mind. They are the philosophical heirs of John Randolph of Roanoke, who startled the House 160 years ago by a sudden eruption.
"Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker," cried the famed Virginian, "I have discovered the philosopher's stone! It is this, sir: Pay as you go! Pay as you go!"
Two years after its ratification, the Stenholm amendment would put the government on John Randolph's course. This is the first section. You will note an escape hatch at the end:
"Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the president shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for that fiscal year by enactment into law of a joint resolution devoted solely to that subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed the level of estimated receipts set forth in such joint resolution, unless three-fifths of the total membership of each House of Congress shall provide, by a roll-call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over estimated receipts."
A bit further along, the resolution provides definitions. Total receipts "shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing." Total outlays "shall include all outlays of the United States except for those for repayment of debt principal."
Go back, if you will, to the first sentence. The amendment says, flat-out, that Congress and the president "shall agree" on a budget resolution setting forth the level of anticipated receipts. How is this to be enforced? For the past six months, the White House and the Hill have been engaged in unseemly wrangles on precisely this issue. If the two parties reach an impasse, is the Supreme Court to impose its own binding notion of "total receipts"? It would be impossible to find a body less qualified for such an undertaking.
But suppose, to be supposing, that agreement is reached. The president and Congress agree on an imaginary number - the kind of number that Budget Director Richard Darman produces with such dramatic flair. The number is amazing. It is half again what any rational analyst would predict. Nevertheless, that becomes the magic number. Whatever the number may be, "total outlays for that year" shall not exceed it.
Again, let us suppose. Let us suppose the Stenholm amendment were now in operation. All that would be required to meet the constitutional mandate would be a nice round figure. We shall agree that receipts for 1991 will be $1.3 trillion. Now, no one in his right mind believes receipts actually will exceed even $1.1 trillion, but the Stenholm amendment neither demands sanity nor condemns lunacy. Everyone is home free. Outlays will not exceed the inflated estimate.
The amendment is a paper tiger. It does not growl; it merely meows. The fearsome teeth are false teeth. The oratorical wind that blows from Capitol Hill brings the sound of clacking gums. And even if all hands agree to an honest estimate of probable receipts, a three-fifths vote in each house can nullify the constitutional command. We may be certain that in the crunch, members would take the easy way out.
Rep. Stenholm's amendment has other provisions of minor interest. The public debt limit could not be increased without the roll-call approval of three-fifths of the total membership of each house. This killjoy provision would spoil one of the games the boys and girls most dearly cherish.
Further, "[n]o bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the total membership of each House by a roll-call vote." This would demand a measure of political courage not recently in evidence.
There we have the crux of the matter. Congress does not need a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. What Congress needs, excuse the homely word, is guts. Backbone. Courage. The wisdom to grasp the moral underpinning of John Randolph's creed.
In peacetime we should pay as we go because it is morally right. Nothing more needs to be said. People of integrity pay their lawful bills. Why do we need a paper amendment to tell us what we already know? Universal Press Syndicate
by CNB