ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, February 28, 1997 TAG: 9702280093
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
A BALANCED-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be fine, it has been said, except for two things - (a) it might work and (b) it might not.
The amendment might work just when you don't want it to - when the nation is facing a military emergency, for example, or mired in the throes of a deep recession. Throughout American history, the ability and willingness to take on debt when necessary has been a major weapon in America's arsenal during times of emergency. Why deny that weapon to future generations?
True, a clause in the version of the amendment to be voted on next week in the U.S. Senate would allow the balanced-budget requirement to be overriden if 60-percent supermajorities in Congress agree. But that 60 percent could prove an insurmountable hurdle; at the least, it increases the odds that a president would be forced to strike pork-barrel deals with individual members of Congress in order to acquire the necessary votes.
True, too, no such military or economic emergencies appear on the horizon at the moment. And under current conditions, deficit spending shouldn't be the solution of first resort even if the economy were to slump. But the purpose of constitutional amendments is not to set policy courses for the next few years, but to write enduring principles into the country's fundamental law.
Perhaps more likely, however, is that the amendment would be ignored. Oh, not on paper: Presidents and the Congress would produce budgets that claimed to be in balance. But the temptation for rosy scenarios, fiscal gimmickry, smoke-and-mirrors accounting could well prove irresistible.
Why not fudge? Budget-making is, after all, guesswork: Since 1980, official deficit projections have turned out just 18 months later to be off by an average of 21 percent, sometimes on the high side and sometimes on the low.
Indeed, not only might the temptation to fudge prove irresistible, but in some circumstances not to fudge would be irresponsible. Even so, the price - more of the cynicism with which America is becoming increasingly familiar - would be unnecessarily high.
High, too, would be the price of the alternative: subjecting budgets and budget projections to court review for constitutionality. Budget-balancing is a job for the president and Congress, not for the courts and the Constitution.
LENGTH: Short : 45 linesby CNB