In order to form an opinion on the issue, one must have an understanding of it. In the simplest terms, the balanced budget amendment would prevent the government for spending more money than it takes in each year. The amendment was to go into effect in 2002, allowing the government seven years to adjust to the new regulations, able to spend no more than it takes in, unless three-fifths of both houses of Congress voted to run an unbalanced budget that year, or in cases of wartime. The last amendment to the Constitution was adopted May 7, 1992, "prohibiting a congressional pay raise from taking effect during the Congress in which it was adopted." 2 This would make a balanced budget amendment the twenty-eighth to the Constitution.
The debate over the balanced budget amendment has been a tough one. It has been a debate of partisan bickering, of principals, of rhetoric and of empty words. "[The House] approved the measure 300-132," 3 and was slated to come before the Senate at the end of February. The first vote in the Senate fell just short of the needed two-thirds majority. A final vote was delayed for a day, then another. The results of the final vote were 65-35, just two votes short of the 67 needed to pass the amendment through the Senate. One of these votes belonged to Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, in order that he would be able to bring the amendment back before the Senate at a later date. The amendment will surely be back.
Why does the country need an amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget? Some say there is no need for such an amendment, that it can be done the "old- fashioned" way. But the "old-fashioned" approach has always been a viable option, yet "in the last 35 years, the United States has run a deficit 34 times." 4 It seems that common sense is a commodity in short supply in the federal government. Why does the country need a balanced budget amendment? It needs the amendment because Congress hasn't got the guts to balance the budget the "old-fashioned" way. It will force Congress to balance the budget.
Many lawmakers opposed the amendment on the grounds that balancing the budget would require cutting benefits to the middle class, such as cuts in Medicare or Social Security. Supporters of the amendment say that this is not the case. Even so, the possibility could arise, and this was enough to provide "cover for uncommitted senators to vote against the amendment." 5 It is true that balancing the budget would require that tough choices be made. The balanced budget amendment could be the shot in the arm the country needs: it may sting a bit at first, but will protect against worse situations in the future. Social Security amounts to a massive part of the yearly budget, nearly half, and together with all the "other mandatory spending programs, combined with interest on the national debt, will eat up all annual revenue by 2012." 6 Tough choices have got to be made. The government (including President Clinton) has got to stop just throwing money at problems. Money doesn't make the problems go away. Action does. The balanced budget amendment would necessitate such action.
Most senators would like to reduce the deficit, to take some action. It seems, though, that they have different ways of expressing this. Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis), who was in favor of the amendment, stated, "The need for the amendment is the result of too much rhetoric and not enough action." 7 However, Senator Russ Feingold, also a Wisconsin Democrat, believed that the balanced budget amendment would only delay action for seven years, and so he voted against it.
Had the founders of this great nation known that this issue would someday come forward, they surely would have included it in the Constitution. However, what appeared to be common sense back then has turn out to be something completely different today in government. With the amendment not likely to come up in the Senate again until 1996, the only option left to balance the budget is to do it the "old-fashioned" way. However, this approach has failed in recent years past, and with tax cuts and increased interest on the debt and more, it will be even harder this year to trim the budget. But if the Congress wants to maintain an approval of the people, they will have to find a way to reduce the deficit.
The struggle for a balanced budget has been a tough one. Partisanship, petty bickering, empty rhetoric all got in the way of the amendment this year. Congress appears to have lost its resolve on this issue. The amendment may hurt a bit, but as they say, "Whatever doesn't kill you can only make you stronger." This balanced budget can make the country stronger. The decision is in the hands of the U.S. Senate, but ultimately, it is in the hands of the U.S. citizens.
2Newt Gingrich, et al., Contract with America, (NY: Times Books, a division of Random House, Inc, 1994)
3Associated Press,"Senate GOP offers amendment change", The Milwaukee Journal, 28 Feb 1995.
4"Congress: Budget Amendment Riddles" Newsweek, 6 Mar 1995: 31.
5Helen Dewar, "Amendment's failure hits Dole the hardest" The Milwaukee Journal, 3 Mar 1995.
6"Gimmics can't cut the deficit" The Milwaukee Journal, 3 Mar 1995.
7Patrick Jasperse, "Amendment or not, Senate wants the budget balanced" The Milwaukee Journal, 3 Mar 1995.
Dear Sir,
I would like to voice my opinion on the balanced budget
amendment that you may consider this when it next comes
before the Senate. I believe that the balanced budget is a
good idea, and since you voted against it before, I will try
to explain my reasoning to you.
I understand that you voted against the amendment because it would delay any action for 7 years. This is not necessarily the case. Besides, it is a step in the right direction. Congress has been unwilling or unable to balance the budget without an amendment; the amendment would provide a motivating force.
Also, concerning social programs like Social Security, eventually, something has got to be done. Cuts here won't be liked by many, but may be necessary.
I'm certain that you have already thought about all this and more, but you are my senator, and I'm sure that you are glad to hear from those you represent.
Sincerely,