Hard Going for the Easy Part

IN THE ABSTRACT, IT'S AN IDEA THAT wins every popularity contest. A public- opinion poll recorded an 80% majority in favor of amending the Constitution to force a balanced federal budget. Bill Clinton had to twist every Democratic arm in sight to block passage of the 1994 version of such an amendment, and even then it failed to get through the Senate by only four votes. Now the Republican majorities in House and Senate have designated the amendment Resolution No. 1, putting it at the top of the agenda. The White House and its congressional allies have been reduced to guerrilla action aimed more at embarrassing the G.O.P. than at actually defeating the legislation.

Yet the closer it comes to reality, the more controopt pageitversy swirls around the long-gestating amendment (the idea has been debated for at least 15 years). Pro-amendment forces "are fragmenting by the day," crows House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt. Even Speaker Newt Gingrich predicts that the House vote "will be tough" -- although it was supposed to be the easiest part of his vaunted Contract with America to pass. Even if the measure is enacted, the temptation to undermine it over the next few years will be huge, since the cuts required to balance the budget would be deep and painful, an average $170 billion a year.

Actually, most legislators think some sort of amendment will win the required two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. But Republicans have had to put off debate for a week or more while they get the troops in line. Eventually, the G.O.P. may have to drop a clause specifying that tax increases could be put into effect only by a three-fifths vote of both houses.

Congressional passage, moreover, will not immediately cement an amendment into the Constitution. Three-fourths of the states also would have to ratify it; a mere 13 states could kill the amendment by voting no or declining to take it up. Many state officials are deeply suspicious that Congress would try to balance the federal budget by pushing off onto them the burden of financing needed but expensive spending programs. Congress has pledged to pass quickly a law prohibiting "unfunded mandates" -- that is, orders to the states to do this or that unaccompanied by any federal money to pay the cost. But state skeptics are not mollified; such a prohibition could all too easily be repealed. |

If a balanced-budget amendment does go into effect, what are the chances it will actually bring federal spending down enough to equal revenues by 2002, the current target date? Zero, say many cynics. The pain will be so intense that future Congresses will open loopholes big enough to squeeze huge expenditures through. The most likely strategy: simply remove major categories of spending like Social Security pensions from the official budget, so that they do not count among the expenditures that have to be reduced.