No Law Can Substitute for Political Courage : Congress is engaged in two major efforts to pass the buck

Federal spending resists control because Congress, the most representative branch of government, is so sensitive to the will of the people. Everyone’s elected representative seeks government spending for “us” and blames the lack of overall fiscal restraint on “them.” Political courage could change that, but true political courage is a rare commodity indeed.

The reforms of the hour in Washington--the line-item veto and the balanced-budget amendment--seek to finesse the courage shortage by transferring a measure of fiscal control from the all-too-representative legislature to the less representative executive and judicial branches.

In theory, the line-item veto allows the President to seek first to serve the interests of the country as a whole by vetoing a measure--say, Midwestern flood control--that might benefit one region alone. The Midwest, predictably, would object to such a veto; every region has its special interest to advance.

Because the President represents the country as a whole and cannot be reelected or defeated by any one region, he can more easily afford a toughness that would cost local representatives their jobs. By that toughness, he can presumably deliver the budgetary restraint that everyone wants--for everyone else.

The balanced-budget amendment, by making budget deficits in effect illegal, may very well result in the transfer of a measure of fiscal control from the legislative branch to the judiciary. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) has suggested that if the amendment passes, taxes could be raised or expenses cut by court order. Is Byrd, a notorious spender of federal money in his own region, correct about that? With regard to enforcement, the amendment says only that “appropriate legislation” shall be passed. Clearly, however, whenever what has been a matter of prudence is made into a matter of law, the judiciary cannot fail to be involved in some way. Stanford constitutional scholar Gerald Gunther regards the eventual involvement of the judiciary as inevitable.

With its hundred-day clock ticking, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is determined to put these changes over the top in a hurry. Our view is that because they are as basic as any changes that our polity is likely to face, they deserve the fullest deliberation.

We find the arguments for the line-item veto persuasive, though quite possibly even this more modest of the two proposed reforms should come about only by constitutional amendment. We find the arguments for the balanced-budget amendment unpersuasive; but even if our view is ultimately rejected, all should agree that the constitutional balance of powers should not be amended in haste.

While the debate proceeds, is it too much to ask that Congress seek fiscal responsibility on its own? After all, California’s Constitution requires a balanced budget, yet our legislators debate openly what is to be done about the $2-billion deficit that, constitutionally speaking, should not exist.

Thus, while the Senate debates to whom to pass the fiscal-responsibility buck, we urge it to consider seriously whether the buck should not stop on Capitol Hill.