 Commentaries
 Printable Version |
 Email to a friend
Balanced Budget Amendment: Best Defense Against Deficitsby
Peter J. Sepp Jun 8, 2002 In 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I wish it were possible to obtain a
single amendment to our Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking
from the federal government the power of borrowing.” During those times
America was forced to fight Barbary Pirates who were terrorizing the high
seas. Some 200 years later, our nation faces a new
war on terror – and Jefferson’s call for constitutional fiscal
restraint is timelier than ever.
For most of our history elected officials felt obligated to keep the
federal budget in the black. Yearly deficits were temporary phenomena brought
on by wars or other emergencies, and the accumulated national debt was reduced
once the crises passed. Unfortunately, a relentless run-up in non-defense
federal spending has doubled the overall budget, after inflation, in
less than 30 years. Congress’s response has been to enact statutory
anti-deficit laws, which in turn have been ignored. The so-called “Era
of Budget Surpluses” has come to an end after just 4 years, and Washington
faces a $100 billion+ shortfall for 2002.
Clearly, the Constitution’s original protections against runaway spending
need to be updated, and the bipartisan Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), sponsored
by Congressmen Ernest Istook (R-OK) and Charles Stenholm (D-TX), is the right
tool for the job. The proposal, essentially identical to one that passed the
House with 300 votes in 1995, would forbid federal outlays from exceeding
revenues except in times of war or a national security emergency. Congress
could only approve a specific deficit with a 3/5 “supermajority” roll call vote of both Houses. To safeguard against knee-jerk tax hikes, the
Amendment would require a majority of the whole number in each chamber (not
just those present and voting) to pass a bill raising revenue.
The BBA is not an unproven concept, nor would it put policymakers in
a “straitjacket.” Today 49 states have balanced budget requirements,
most of which are written into their Constitutions. While legislators can
find “creative” ways around such limits, the numbers speak for
themselves: although they generally spend less than half the amount the federal
government does every year, states have only run up roughly 1/10 the debt
that Uncle Sam has amassed.
No wonder the prestigious Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations – made up of elected officials from all
levels – concluded that constitutional limits helped to give states
“a good record of fiscal discipline,” and that their experience
“is relevant to the fiscal problems of the federal government.”
The BBA is all the more relevant in the post-Sept.
11 world. From 1980 to 2001, a period of relative peace and prosperity, the
national debt rose by more than 500%. Meanwhile, foreign ownership of U.S.
federal debt more than doubled, to 35 percent. Gross interest on the national
debt is now the third largest budget item – $335 billion, right behind
national defense. Had it been in place, a BBA could have slowed this 20-year
debt spiral, giving America greater financial freedom now to fight the war
on terror – not to mention greater freedom from political intimidation
by debtholder governments abroad.
Other doomsayers predict the BBA will imperil
Social Security unless the program is exempted from the balanced budget requirement.
Actually the opposite is true – such a loophole would allow Congress
to fund all kinds of frivolous, unrelated programs under the guise of Social
Security, ultimately endangering the solvency of the whole federal government
once the scheme unraveled.
As a model of effective simplicity, the BBA
would neither trivialize the Constitution nor clutter it. While it doesn’t
guarantee the budget will be balanced every year, it does guarantee that lawmakers
will need to confront choices on spending and taxes head-on, and face political
accountability for doing so.
Constitutions shouldn’t make policy,
but they should set rules within which policymakers operate and they should
guarantee the rights of citizens. If our fundamental right – and that
of future generations – to be free of excessive federal debt cannot
be protected by our Constitution, little else in that precious document will
matter. Thomas Jefferson would certainly agree.
Pete Sepp is Vice President for Communications with the 335,000-member
National Taxpayers Union (NTU), a non-partisan citizen group founded
in 1969 to work for lower taxes, less wasteful spending, and accountable
government at all levels. NTU was the original sponsoring organization
of the Balanced Budget Amendment, and has sought the Amendment’s
enactment since 1975. |
