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 of the past 44 years, in 22 years that would have been another loophole in that particular amendment. Let me just quote a few sentences from the New York Times editorial. Among other things it does condemn deficits. It says, ``borrowing threatens to siphon money away from businesses.'' Borrowing not only threatens to siphon money away, it is siphoning money away. The Concord Coalition study--and I have been impressed by the economic research that goes into their studies even though I do not agree with every conclusion that they have--said if it were not for the deficit the average American family income today would be $50,000 rather than $35,000. And that is because of the borrowing that takes place from the Federal Government that has replaced business spending.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses concerns about the Reid amendment and its economic implications.
Share
More from Sen. Paul Simon
I will just comment for 3 minutes on the speech by my colleague from Arkansas. Then I want to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. First of all, 80 percent of what he had to say, believe it or not, supports the balanced budget amendment…
I would point out simply that is the policy of this administration as spelled out in the Wellstone amendment. That is why I am hoping that maybe we can still work out some kind of a compromise with the Senator from Kansas because I do not…
The answer is we will occasionally do so, and for those who say what about a recession, since 1962 we have had 11 stimulus packages pass the U.S. Senate. All of them passed with more than 60 votes.
It ought to be a very rare thing. We can't just be an international Rambo wandering around doing whatever we want regardless of international law.





