The federal budget deficit next year is projected at roughly $170 billion. It is a measure of how distorted our expectations have become that we think of that as progress.
Only $170 billion is to be added next year to America’s $4 trillion-plus mountain of national debt. Only $170 billion more is to be handed down as a legacy to our children and grandchildren.
Of course, when measured against the $250 billion to $300 billion deficits of just a couple years ago, $170 billion really is progress. And Congress and the president deserve a measure of credit for lowering the red ink to that level.
But they have not thereby demolished the case for the proposed balanced budget amendment, which the Senate began debating Tuesday and-if the proponents can sway a few more votes-may finally pass later in the week.
As cussed and discussed as any legislation in recent American history, the balanced budget amendment is a desperate but necessary device for restoring discipline to the management of the nation’s treasury by Congress and the president.
Just how undisciplined that process has become is indicated by the size of the national debt and the rapidity of its growth over the past dozen or so years. In 1981, the debt was less than one-fourth its current size. In other words, in 13 years, the nation accumulated three times as much debt as it did during its first 200 years. That way lies fiscal ruin.
During that same time, Congress contrived every manner of statutory gadget to rein in its prodigality, but nothing could stand long against the impulse to spend. Even last year’s Clinton deficit-reduction plan barely squeaked through-with no votes to spare.
Critics of the balanced budget amendment make a host of arguments, many specious but some quite serious. Among the latter are the possibility that the courts ultimately will come to control the federal budget, as litigants spar over the meaning of phrases like “outlays” and “receipts” and “revenue.” But that speculative danger must be weighed against the demonstrated reality of a budget process that is out of control and requires discipline.
Critics also assert, correctly, that a balanced budget is not always desirable as a matter of economic policy. Nolo contendere. That’s why the amendment allows for its suspension by Congress during wartime, or any time three-fifths of the members of each house can be persuaded to vote for a specific deficit.
Changing the basic charter of the nation is not something to be done lightly or frequently. But if safeguarding the fiscal integrity of the nation is not a sufficient reason, what, pray tell, would be?
