Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, March 4, 1995 TAG: 9503070015
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Yet the senators who withheld their support in a crucial vote this week have nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, they deserve Americans' gratitude for blocking - if just by a vote or two - the progress of this dangerous contrivance.
The proposal, to be sure, had been revised to include a loophole nearly as big as the amendment itself. At the insistence of Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Georgia, a sentence was added: "The judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any case or controversy arising under this article except as may be specifically authorized by legislation adopted pursuant to this section."
In other words, had the amendment in this form passed and been ratified by the states, Congress could have disregarded it with impunity. No one could sue to force compliance.
Nunn was right, however, in his objection to the original proposal. It would have shifted fiscal authority, which the Constitution's framers had placed in Congress, to the judiciary. It would have allowed the Supreme Court, in deciding disputes over compliance with the amendment, to order Congress to raise taxes.
Of course, rendering the amendment largely unenforceable is hard to defend as an improvement. And the altered amendment still would have skewed the separation of powers, perhaps encouraging presidents to balance budgets unilaterally by impounding funds appropriated for projects they dislike. (Again: Who could sue?)
Besides sparing the nation a possible constitutional crisis, naysayers in Congress also blocked a threat to economic stability.
Consider what happens during recessions. Tax revenues drop, and the costs of some programs, such as unemployment compensation, go up. Under the balanced-budget amendment, the government would be forced to cut spending or raise taxes, further slowing the economy at a time when it is most in need of stimulus.
Of course it's critical to reduce budget deficits, at least to the point that federal debt grows more slowly than the economy. It's also OK, though, if the government borrows to finance investments. Amendment supporters insist: States have to balance their budgets. True enough. But they also have capital budgets for roads and bridges and schools.
In efforts to reduce deficits, political leadership - not a constitutional amendment - remains the critical missing ingredient. No one has yet shown with any realism, for example, how they actually would balance the budget. It's safer to demand this in the abstract, while proposing specific tax cuts.
Republicans hope to make hay against Democrats who voted against the amendment. (Never mind that GOP sages of the stature of Milton Friedman, Robert Bork and Herbert Stein also opposed the thing.) Democrats will respond by noting that Republicans refused to include a provision exempting Social Security from cuts required to achieve a balanced budget.
All of which comes across like bilge flung by cynical wimps. Having (barely) defeated the ill-conceived amendment, members of Congress should get on with their jobs and stop fiddling with Madison's Constitution.
by CNB