The Balanced Budget Amendment:
Perils Without Purpose

Soon, both houses of Congress will vote on a proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget every year -- no matter what.

Maybe it sounds like a good idea. But, as with many slick slogans that come from Washington, D.C., it would be a disaster for our nation and our families. It would make recessions longer and more painful, give politicians an excuse to cut Social Security and Medicare, and make it more difficult to invest in our children and protect our natural environment. And it would bring all these perils without a purpose.

It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to bring the federal deficit under control. All it takes is courage and common sense, and these qualities have never been too common in Washington.

During the 1980's, the Reagan-Bush administrations and what was often an all-too-compliant Congress cut taxes on big business and the rich, gave the Pentagon everything it wanted and then some, and handed the bill to working Americans and our children and grandchildren.

The result: $2 trillion in new federal debt. Just paying the interest on that debt keeps the federal budget running a deficit. In fact, these huge interest payments -- and not any gap between current revenues and current spending -- are the reason why there's a federal deficit right now.

Over the past four years, the Clinton administration and Congress have gotten the deficit back under control. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit has fallen from $290 billion to $107 billion since 1993. And this was accomplished without sacrificing the futures of our children and grandchildren, or our parents and grandparents.

Even more important, the accomplishments of the past four years show that we can keep the deficit under control, without re-writing the Constitution. By amending the Constitution to require our leaders to do what they can do anyway, we would risk two hazards -- preventing government from doing what it must and giving politicians an excuse to do what they shouldn't.

With our country, as with our families, there's nothing wrong with borrowing for the right reasons -- investing in things that make us stronger, smarter, and more productive. Just as our families borrow to buy houses and cars, or send our kids to college, our country can and should borrow, if necessary, to invest in the future, through education and training, transportation and technology.

Just as the Balanced budget Amendment would put a crimp on investing in our children's future, it would also make it more difficult for government to help the economy recover from the next recession. During an economic downturn, tax revenues decline, while social spending increases. In such a situation, a Balanced Budget Amendment would require the government to raise taxes, cut spending, or do both things. And most economists agree that these actions would make a recession last longer and hurt more.

Worst of all, the Balanced Budget Amendment would victimize the old and the young. We already know where Congressional leaders go when they need to find big budget cuts. Remember last year's fight over the federal budget? Huge cuts were required to balance the budget and, at the same time, pay for hefty tax breaks. And where was the first place Congress looked for cuts? Right at Medicare and Medicaid.

Last year, House Speaker Newt Gingrich told older Americans that he was forced to cut Medicare in order to "save" it. If Congress passes the Balanced Budget Amendment, next time he'll have another excuse: "Sorry, seniors and your families, the Constitution made me do it." And Congress could do the same thing about cutting Social Security, as well.

The fact is: The Balanced Budget Amendment does not exempt Medicare or Social Security from cuts. When the Balanced Budget Amendment was debated in 1995, Republican leaders in Congress tacked on a resolution saying Congress would not use Social Security funds to balance the budget -- but only after the year 2008. This clearly shows they want to be able to cut Social Security between now and 2008 -- and the Balanced Budget Amendment would let them do it.

Similarly, the Balanced Budget Amendment would also encourage Congress to cut programs that provide opportunity for the young -- from child nutrition and Head Start, to aid to our public schools and student loans for our young people. Other programs likely to be on the chopping block include environmental protection, veterans benefits, and job training and retraining for working women and men. It would only take a simple majority vote in the House and Senate to cut these programs that benefit working families. But it would take a supermajority -- three-fifths of the members of the House and the Senate -- to cut tax breaks for the wealthy and big business.

Yes Congress should show some responsibility in spending the taxpayers' money. But the Balanced Budget Amendment will only encourage more irresponsibility to the old and the young, our nation's future and our fundamental values.