Then people say, ``Well, with the balanced budget amendment, we can't have the kind of investment that we ought to have.'' It is very interesting that in 1966 when we had a deficit of $3.7 billion, we had long-term investments of 2.6 percent out of our budget. In 1991, with a $268 billion deficit, we had 1.8 percent. The deficit has not increased investment. What we need right now, finally, Madam President, is an outpouring of people contacting their Senators saying: ``We want pay-as-you-go Government.'' We simply are not going to stop the abuses. You see what is happening in the future in terms of the deficit, even with what happened last year. We are going to have to get ahold of this thing. The American people have to let the Members of the U.S. Senate know that they want this. There is an old saw that there were so many heroes at the Alamo because there was no back door. We need something without a back door. Politicians do not like to do unpopular things. There is no popular way of balancing the budget. But we are going to have to do some unpopular things. Every generation of Americans, Madam President, has taken care of themselves and invested in the future, up until this generation. We have partially taken care of ourselves and borrowed from the future. That has to change.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses the need for a balanced budget and investment in the future.
Share
More from Sen. Paul Simon
I have indicated already I think it has just massive loopholes in it, in what is called capital expenditures, and the fact that it has no enforcement mechanism. My staff has checked out the loophole for periods of low economic growth and…
Such an amendment would be a political mistake. It would allow a mere 40 out of 100 senators and a similar minority in the House to block legislation that would create a deficit. And because the amendment includes no enforcement procedure…
First, I want to comment on the observations of the majority leader, for whom I have great respect, when he said we are putting this off to the year 2001 so no one here will have to act on it. Senator Feinstein was one of those who talked…
Senator Metzenbaum has just illustrated why it is going to be a great loss not to have him in the U.S. Senate. I happened, back many years ago, to have served in military intelligence when I was in the Army. I think the bill he offers…





