John Sarbanes: “To summarize once again the economists' statement, first of all, the balanced budget amendment would not enable us to…”

“To summarize once again the economists' statement, first of all, the balanced budget amendment would not enable us to respond automatically to economic downturns, running the risk, therefore, of turning recessions into depressions. Second, and I quote, "Unlike many State constitutions, which permit borrowing of financed capital expenditures, the proposed Federal amendment makes no distinction between capital investments and current outlays. Private businesses and households borrow all the time to finance capital spending. The amendment would prevent Federal borrowing to finance expenditures for infrastructure, education, research and development, environmental protection, and other investment vital to the Nation's future well-being." If we had a capital budget right now, we would have a balanced budget, because there is well over $107 billion worth of capital items in the Federal budget. Third, I addressed the escape hatches and the difficulty of obtaining these supermajorities. That is really a recipe for gridlock. Fourth, and this leads again to my final point, we have brought the deficit down consecutively now for 4 straight years. How? We made tough decisions on spending and taxing. We voted for the 1993 economic plan. Many of those pushing the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution voted against that economic plan with respect to the budget.”