[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E347-E348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OHIO STATE TREASURER KEN BLACKWELL MAKES THE CASE FOR A BALANCED BUDGET 
                               AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE CHABOT

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 1997

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to insert into the Record today an 
excellent article written by my friend, Ohio State Treasurer Ken 
Blackwell. Ken has become one of the Nation's leading voices for tax 
and budgetary reform, community empowerment and economic growth--
positions he articulated as a colleague of mine on the Cincinnati City 
Council, later as Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, and now as Ohio treasurer.
  Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to participate in a 
Cincinnati event with Treasurer Blackwell in which he made a very 
strong case for immediate adoption of a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. He elaborates on that message in 
his excellent op-ed piece, published recently in the Washington Times. 
I agree with him wholeheartedly and I commend the column to my 
colleagues.

               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 21, 1997]

                    Balanced Budget Amendment Timing

                         (By Kenneth Blackwell)

       Every generation or so, an idea that requires amendment or 
     reinterpretation of the Constitution comes along.

[[Page E348]]

       Just over 200 years ago, the idea was the Bill of Rights, 
     adopted to make sure American citizens would never be subject 
     to arbitrary federal intrusions on their liberty.
       In the aftermath of the Civil War, the idea was embodied in 
     the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments abolishing slavery, 
     conferring citizenship and extending voting rights to a 
     sizable and productive segment of our society.
       In the first two decades of the 20th century, the idea was 
     women's suffrage. In the middle decades, the idea was 
     fulfilling the promise of the 13th through 15th amendments.
       The idea now is the Balanced Budget Amendment.
       In ``My American Journey,'' Colin Powell says correctly the 
     ``great domestic challenge of our time is to reconcile the 
     necessity for fiscal responsibility with the explosive growth 
     in entitlement programs,'' and that we have to face up to 
     reducing the entitlement system or raise taxes to pay for 
     it--we cannot continue to pass on to ``your children and 
     grandchildren the crushing debt that we are currently 
     amassing as their inheritance.''
       Nobody these days is expressing much disagreement with the 
     general's point. Eliminating the deficit is the motherhood 
     issue of the '90s. Everybody is in favor of it. The question 
     I ask opponents of a Balanced Budget Amendment is: If they 
     are so in favor of motherhood, what do they have against 
     marriage? Why should we not solemnize with a constitutional 
     contract our commitment to do what they agree must be done 
     about our spending?
       Two of William F. Buckley's current ``Firing Line'' series 
     feature the Balanced Budget Amendment. I was part of the team 
     supporting it; the other side was led by Sen. Daniel Patrick 
     Moynihan. I think most observers would agree that nobody 
     opposing the amendment is likely to grasp and articulate the 
     arguments more effectively than he, so it follows for me that 
     if his points can be addressed, the case for the amendment is 
     made.
       The senator asserts that we should not try to solve every 
     political problem by tinkering with the Constitution. True, 
     but if it were not for some tinkering in 1913, the senator 
     would now occupy his office only if he were able to campaign 
     as effectively among members of the upper house of the New 
     York legislature as he does among the state's registered 
     voters.
       We have been trying to fix the deficit problem with 
     legislative action for more than 20 years, but our 
     legislative and executive branches have lacked the political 
     will to get it done. Some political problems can be solved 
     only by amendment. The 17th Amendment was not tinkering, and 
     neither is the Balanced Budget Amendment.
       The senator noted that states have become dependent on 
     federal monies, and he asked what the impact of the amendment 
     would be on Ohio. The answer is it will be a $2.4 billion hit 
     or about 8 percent of the state's budget. Cutting spending 
     enough to make up for this loss will not be fun, but we are 
     already making plans to do it, and other states can do the 
     same.
       Opponents say the federal budget is too complex, that a 
     workable amendment simply cannot be drafted. If they really 
     believed that, we would not be having this debate. The 
     opponents would pass it, watch it fall of its own weight, 
     spend around the wreckage, and blame proponents for a dumb 
     plan. Forty-eight states have a working balanced budget 
     requirement. It is precisely because it can be made to work 
     at the federal level that they are so against it.
       Opponents say an ironclad amendment would leave us unable 
     to come up with funds to fight wars or recessions. One 
     sentence from the 14th Amendment will dispose of this 
     objection: ``Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each 
     house, remove such a disability.'' And if two-thirds of each 
     house cannot be persuaded to agree, then maybe the bills for 
     such wars or economic problems are not ones we should leave 
     for our grandchildren.
       The historian Henry Brooks Adams wrote in 1907 in ``The 
     Education of Henry Adams'' that ``Practical politics consists 
     in ignoring facts.''
       With the amendment, our elected representatives at the 
     federal level will have to choose between offending taxpayers 
     by paying for programs as we go or offending important 
     constituencies by facing the fact that we cannot afford their 
     programs. With no amendment, our politicians can meet the 
     Adams test of practicality by continuing to ignore the fact 
     that their programs are affordable only if we stick 
     generations to come with the tab.
       The only salient questions about a Balanced Budget 
     Amendment have been asked before in the context of all the 
     other amendments.
       If not us, who? If not now, when?
       The questions are unanswerable for opponents of the 
     amendment. For proponents, the answers are clear.
       The who is us. And the time is now.

                          ____________________