The truth of the balanced budget amendment defies a quick fix

Chad Strawderman Arizona Daily Wildcat

I was dead wrong.

It's my job to have opinions, but these opinions must reflect what is "simply true," not what is consistent with prior mindsets. Consistency mandates that I tell you the BBA will lead to congressional responsibility and economic growth. Truth defies both these claims, and embarrassingly, my former steadfast opinion.

Believing Congress will be more responsible under a BBA requires the same faith in government that failed in Prohibition. In politics, if there isn't will, there isn't a way. Politicians must follow the spirit of the laws they enact. Otherwise, loopholes are eventually exploited. Under a BBA, such loopholes include off-budget funds (pools of money not included in the budget), deferred maintenance (withholding construction until absolutely necessary), and selling government assets. All of these "solutions" are temporary, quick-fix patches.

The BBA may also cause a tremendous shift in power from the legislative to the judiciary branch. You see, if our lovely representatives fail to play nicely and agree on a budget, the courts must take over and enforce the Constitution. That is, the courts must design a budget. These are federal judges who know little to nothing about economics. The checks and balances system of our country would be eviscerated. Some senators tried to prevent this by excluding the courts from the BBA, but then the amendment becomes a useless piece of paper. Without the judiciary branch behind it, the amendment has no teeth.

I envisioned a more suitable solution. If the kids in Congress can't get along, instead of closing the government, I say we jail every single member for impersonating a government official. Let them enjoy their American prison system. We'll give them a big table with 535 chairs, and they can play pinochle until a budget is agreed upon. Then, and only then, we'll let them out. Of course, I'm open to equally dissuasive techniques, like Disney Channel marathons or ice cubes to the nipples- whatever gets results.

But a BBA alone simply doesn't follow through. Even Senator Paul Simon, D-Iowa, a vigorous proponent of the amendment, admitted this flaw. He said Americans shouldn't expect an "ironclad guarantee" of fiscal policy,even though most Ameri cans worship the BBA for this supposed feature.

Economic realities also demystify the BBA. Don't mistake me- it is absolutely crucial that we eliminate our debt. At current interest rates, over $300 billion dollars is paid annually just for interest on the debt. That's more than we spend on education, and we aren't even denting the debt.

However, we can not be immature about deficit spending. Deficits are not the source of all evil (remember, that's Michael Bolton). Deficits can be very necessary. In wartime and recessions, government must stimulate the economy through tax cuts or federal spending. President Hoover did the exact opposite during the Great Depression by raising taxes. Revenue from income tax fell from $1.1 billion in 1930 to $353 million in 1933. He aggravated the problem by shunning deficit spending.

Under a BBA, our Congress would be helpless to run a deficit in times of need unless a three-fifths supermajority agreed. Come on. Fifty percent of these guys couldn't agree on a budget with a shut-down government; now we expect 60 percent? Besides, a supermajority allows a minority to wield immense power in Congress. A group of grumpy Senators may hold Congress at bay until their demands are met. This defies the premise of democracy and majority rule.

I know it's hard to accept the failures of the BBA, especially when it has benefits. Everyone agrees interest rates would drop about two points, and under public pressure to follow the Constitution, Congress just might get real and cut the entitlement programs now destroying us. But walking down that path requires maturity and will, on the part of ourselves and our politicians. We can not replace these traits with a balanced budget amendment that blankets our economic ills. To do so is to cure the disease by killing the patient, and that's something we can never afford.

Mark Joseph Goldenson is a freshman majoring in psychology and molecular and cellular biology. His column, "Gold Standard," appears on Fridays.

By Mark Joseph Goldenson
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 28, 1997