Published March 1994 — Download PDF of the original newspaper column
Byrd's-Eye View By U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd Balanced Budget Amendment To the Constitution (Part I)
Recently, the U.S. Senate rejected Senate Joint Resolution 41, a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Its demise was a victory for the American people, who deserve real leadership and responsible action to reduce the national debt. By opposing the constitutional amendment, I am not suggesting that we should not bring our budget deficits under control. We must and we are. However, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would not accomplish that goal. It was not a substitute for responsible leadership, nor would it have been a catalyst for reasoned action. That amendment, which called for annual balanced budgets beginning in the year 200 I, was classic legerdemain--declaring, on the one hand, that the budget be balanced annually, and, on the other, that that mandate could be violated. Therefore, it constituted a false promise to the people. Over the past dozen years the country has been on a national credit card binge. This is not the fault of the appropriations committees. Over the past half century, 1945 to 1993, total congressional appropriations amounted to $220 billion less than the total budget requests of all Presidents during that period. The massive tax cuts of the early 1980's, which benefited the wealthy, and the huge defense build-up--together with spiraling entitlements, the S&L bail-out, and the recession of the early 1990' s--all resulted in a quadrupling of the national debt. In other words, the borrow- and-spend mentality of the Reagan-Bush years added more than $3 trillion to the nearly $1 trillion of debt that had accumulated during the preceding 182 years of Republican and Democratic administrations. To get control over budget deficits, debt, and interest on the debt will require tough and painful choices, including cuts in entitlements and increases in revenues--not gimmickry. Pollsters often ask the American people a simplistic question that carries strong political appeal: "Do you favor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget?" The pollsters do not ask, "Do you favor increased taxes? Or cutting social security, veterans compensation and pensions, or military pay? Or cutting funds for education, law enforcement, or the war on drugs?" We must not risk seriously crippling our economy with a "feel-good" constitutional amendment that would defile_ the Constitution and fool the American people, only to enhance the reelection of national politicians. The 1993 budget deficit reduction package, passed by Congress, was a solid start. We must continue to build upon that effort. I shall have more to say on this subject in subsequent columns. March 2, 1994