I will have much more to say on the substance of this amendment which I strongly oppose. But I want now to comment specifically on the changes that the sponsors have insisted on making to their amendment, and what I believe this means in terms of the amendment itself. The first is of course to push it into the next century, a time when many if not most of the sponsors will not be here to face the consequences. That is the first point. If this was such a great idea, why do those who support it want to push its implementation into the next century? The answer is obvious. This amendment is a gimmick. It is an effort to suggest action when those involved are refusing to take action. It is no coincidence that of the 55 Senators who are sponsors of this amendment which purports to balance the budget, 40 of them voted against the deficit reduction plan proposed last year, the single most important and effective action in dealing with the Federal budget deficit that this Senate has taken. I repeat that. This amendment says we have a serious deficit problem, so serious that we have to amend the Constitution. And yet 40 of the 55 sponsors of this amendment voted against the single most important action to deal with the deficit ever taken by this Senate. And the second modification says that this amendment cannot be enforced. The sponsors of the amendment are demanding that it be changed to make certain that it cannot ever, under any circumstances, be enforced.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker opposes an amendment related to balancing the budget and criticizes its sponsors.
Share
More from George Mitchell
Every course of action has a high degree of risk and is not guaranteed to succeed. But I think that there has to be a process that will force the Iraqis to make the difficult decisions they have so far refrained from making.
Well, it is a big step forward because the violence has ended and that's critically important. The longer it goes on with more fighting and dying, the harder it is to solve any problem.
Well, it's a big step forward, because the violence has ended, and that's critically important. The longer it goes on with more fighting and dying, the harder it is to solve any problem.
If we start to means-test Social Security, it immediately becomes a welfare program.





