Balanced Budget Plan: Looks, 10; Workability, 0

No. 1 on the legislative menu of the new 105th Congress is a Republican-backed constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget by the year 2002 and every year thereafter. What could have more first-glance appeal? But amending the Constitution, despite the political symbolism, is not the way to go about controlling government spending.

On Tuesday, President Clinton voiced his strongest opposition yet, appropriately characterizing the proposed amendment as a “straitjacket” that pays little regard to the vagaries of the economy. For instance, it would not provide the flexibility needed to deal with recessions, when federal spending might have to rise as revenues drop. The proposal would allow suspension of the balanced budget requirement only if three-fifths of each house approved. That’s not much of an escape valve considering how long it takes Congress to act on most problems.

The amendment, pushed through the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, generally fails to spell out how a balanced budget would be achieved. The difficult decisions on what spending to cut or how to raise revenues are not addressed but simply are left to future congresses--and everyone knows how difficult and seemingly endless budget negotiations can be in the Capitol.

The GOP proposal would include the Social Security trust funds in the budget balancing (the Judiciary Committee beat back a Democratic challenge to that formula). Including trust fund monies would vastly alter budget calculations. For example, this year’s federal deficit is about $100 billion when trust funds are included and $160 billion without the funds.

When Congress last considered the balanced budget amendment, in 1995, the House approved it but the measure failed in the Senate by a single vote. The notion’s appeal remains in the air in Washington. Some Democrats voted with the GOP in Thursday’s committee action, and more may be enticed to join in later. But a yes vote by Congress would be a mistake.

The amendment--which will be put before the states’ legislatures if it wins approval in the House and Senate--has drawn opposition from a broad spectrum of economists and fiscal experts. It should. The amendment is irresponsible governance, fiscally reckless and a false political star.