Both sides in the debate over a proposed constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget are warning of grave risks to the nation's well-being as they battle for public support and congressional votes.
In testimony Tuesday before Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the plan's most vocal opponent, White House Budget Director Leon Panetta, four members of President Clinton's Cabinet and other friendly witnesses painted grim scenarios should the amendment be approved."Everything we have done in the last few decades to build the highly capable force we have today is really at risk here," said Defense Secretary William Perry, referring to military cuts the amendment might require.
But this was matched one floor above in the same Senate office building. There, the amendment's chief sponsor, Sen. Paul Simon, D-Ill., heard former Democratic presidential candidate Paul Tsongas and others give anguished accounts of the consequences should the measure be defeated and deficits continue at astronomical levels.
"My wife and I have two young grandsons," said David Stanley, president of the National Taxpayers Union, the private conservative group that lobbies for tax and spending cuts. "They cried when they were born. Of course they cried, coming into the world owing a huge and growing personal share of the national debt."
The Senate next week is scheduled to debate Simon's amendment, which would require a balanced budget by the year 2001 unless three-fifths of the House and Senate were to vote otherwise.
The vote is considered too close to call. House passage likely would follow if the Senate approves the plan.