Balanced-Budget Effort Runs Into Sense : Even Republicans are now saying, ‘Let’s not be hasty’

The Republican stampede in the 104th Congress for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget is losing its fury because of opposition not just from the Democrats but from within the GOP, too. That’s good, because it may mean that common sense is finally prevailing over political rhetoric in assessing the dubious merits of constitutionally requiring government outlays to match government expenditures by the year 2002.

Both the House and the Senate have delayed consideration of the balanced-budget amendment to further study the issue. That tells you something right there. What’s giving them pause is a provision in the House balanced-budget bill to require a three-fifths vote in both chambers to approve tax increases. Senate supporters of the amendment have wisely indicated serious misgivings about that onerous vote requirement, a key part of the House Republicans’ “contract with America.”

Moderate Republicans in both houses also now are questioning the 60% provision, which would make it inordinately difficult to enact tax hikes. The House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday approved the vote requirement, but several moderate Republicans said it is likely to be modified--or even removed--when it comes to a vote on the House floor next week.

The political fervor for a balanced-budget amendment should not be equated with real-world efforts to actually balance the federal budget. That’s because spending cuts and good intentions on paper can go awry when up against unpredictable economic realities. Should a recession occur and federal revenues fall, automatic spending cuts in unemployment compensation and other programs would hurt jobless people who desperately need the benefits. With consumers spending less, a balanced budget could worsen or prolong an economic downturn.

Consider too that sometimes fulfilling legal requirements to balance state budgets are no more than feats of deft bookkeeping whereby budgets are “balanced” on paper but actual state spending still exceeds revenues. That is what California has done in the last couple of years, for example.

Also be wary of putting the cart before the horse. It is absurd to approve such an amendment before deciding what federal spending is to be cut. Indeed, while polls show that support for the constitutional amendment is high, support drops off when specific spending cuts are mentioned. The House Republican leadership said this weekend it will unveil a budget by the end of this month.

Finally, Congress does not need a constitutional mandate to tackle the arduous task of balancing the books. The requirement should be in legislators’ job description. The symbolism of passing a balanced-budget amendment, which is subject to state ratification, is no substitute for delivering a budget that imposes spending discipline.