[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E111-E112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        A DUAL IN THE DEFICIT WAR

                                 ______


                        HON. PATRICIA SCHROEDER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 17, 1995
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues 
the January 15 Rocky Mountain News editorial, ``A Dud in the Deficit 
War.''
  The dud in question is the much-ballyhooed balanced budget amendment. 
The Rocky counsels that the ``Republicans would better spend their time 
devising real cuts in real programs and leave the hocus pocus to Barnum 
and Bailey.''
  I'm afraid, however, that the Rocky's call for real cuts in real 
programs is falling on unreceptive ears. One of our distinguished 
Republican budget-cutters recently launched an assault on the deficit 
by proposing the elimination of the Board of Tea Tasters.
                        A Dud in the Deficit War

       The issue: The balanced budget amendment.
       Our view: Sounds good, but probably wouldn't work.
       The centerpiece of the Republican Party's Contract With 
     America promises a line-item veto and a balanced budget 
     amendment. The veto is a good idea, nearly everyone agrees, 
     but the same cannot be said for the budget amendment, even if 
     the principle behind it attracts the supports of 80% of 
     Americans.
       Few would deny that the idea of making the federal 
     government spend no more than it takes in is pleasing to the 
     ear. That, after all, is the economic philosophy private 
     citizens ignore at their peril, at least in the long run. 
     There was a time, in fact, when the idea of running a deficit 
     in peacetime was thought to reflect a sort of moral 
     shortcoming.
       Yet there are several problems with the GOP's amendment. 
     While the amendment promises to lock the government into a 
     balanced budget and, in fact, outlaw deficits, a quick look 
     at the not-so-fine type finds king-sized loopholes. By the 
     mere act of securing a three-fifths vote, Congress can bust 
     the budget with joyful abandon. We're not talking about 
     wartime emergencies, which would suspend the amendment in 
     order to allow for rapid increases in defense spending. No, 
     the three-fifths vote looms like a bottle in a ``reformed'' 
     drunk's basement--a strong temptation to backsliding.
       Another ploy to get around the amendment's demands would be 
     to use unrealistic budget assumptions and balance the budget 
     merely on paper, a trick any politician who has been in 
     Washington 15 minutes knows how to perform. There is also an 
     element of deception in the fact that the amendment applies 
     only to the formal budget document, not the actual operating 
     budget.
       A larger concern comes from state governments, which fear, 
     for no little reason, that Washington's strapped politicians 
     will pass on the cost of programs to them. Clearly enough, it 
     is a great deal easier for Washington to force states to take 
     up the slack than 
     [[Page E112]] to order service cuts, job losses and new 
     taxes. Washington pols could easily be tempted to make 
     promises to valued constituencies and send the bill to states 
     and municipalities. The federal budget might not suffer, but 
     the jolt to local taxpayers could be immense.
       Just now, the GOP hopes to assure governors and state 
     legislators that another plank in its Contract, which calls 
     for a crackdown on unfunded mandates, will eliminate this 
     option. No doubt many Americans, and perhaps their state 
     legislators, are so fed up and frightened by federal deficits 
     that they are willing to take this leap into the unknown. 
     Assurances that unfunded mandates will no longer be allowed 
     may provide the security necessary to make that leap.
       Even opponents of the amendment such as ourselves hardly 
     believe it would be the end of the world. But to truly 
     balance the budget, especially without tax increases, will 
     mean eliminating services, slowing the growth of entitlement 
     benefits and ending tax breaks. This is true even under 
     optimistic scenarios for economic growth, given the 
     ballooning deficits projected for the next century when the 
     baby boomers retire.
       Republicans would better spend their time devising real 
     cuts in real programs and leave the hocus procus to Barnum 
     and Bailey.
     

                          ____________________