The balanced-budget amendment, although good-sounding, is a very dangerous diversion. There is no need to alter or amend the Constitution. The Constitution is not flawed or in need of repair. It's the irresponsibly spending congressmen who need to be whipped into shape.
By voting for this amendment, congressmen would be putting off balancing the budget until at least the year 2002, when they could and should do it this year!To pass the amendment, a two-thirds vote of both houses is needed. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states during a seven-year ratification period. The amendment itself states that it will not take effect until fiscal 2002 or beyond.
Well, if there are 67 senators and 290 congressmen ready to vote for the amendment, then they already have what they need to balance the budget now. It takes only a simple majority to pass a budget bill that is balanced. No need to wait until 2002. Our congressmen were elected to balance the budget this year, not slough off that responsibility to some future Congress.
The amendment is also loaded with other loopholes. Section I provides that the balanced-budget requirement can be ignored any time three-fifths of both houses decided to start running the red ink again. But they really don't even need three-fifths. Section 4 says that the balanced-budget requirement "may be waived for any fiscal year in which the U.S. faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security" with only a majority vote. It doesn't even require a declaration of war but merely a "threat to national security." Would that include Haiti? Bosnia? Somalia? Rwanda?
Even if Congress were to make good on the amendment, no where does it state that it would do so by cutting back the size and cost of government. But it sure would give Congress a great excuse to raise our taxes again, and again, and again.
NayLynn Rudd
Springville