On the recordDecember 14, 2011
This Senate can, should, and has shown the ability to reach balanced budgets--no, in fact, surpluses--within living memory. In fact, when President Clinton was the President, this Senate and the House acted together. They adopted budgetary self-restraint. Why amend the Constitution of the United States, our most foundational document, when we have within our own power, recently demonstrated in the late 1990s, the capacity to control ourselves? The Senator and I agree we are leaving to our children an enormous, crushing legacy of a national debt that has exceeded safe boundaries. But why amend the Constitution in order to force the Senate to do our job? Instead, I think we should embrace some of the tough, big, bold, bipartisan proposals that have been put on the table--whether the Bowles-Simpson Commission or others. The framework of a broad deal that requires sacrifice from all, changes to the spiraling Federal spending, and changes in the direction of the country is on the table before us. Why take a detour into amending America's foundational document rather than simply stepping up and doing the job that is before us?





