Angie Craig: “the writer of this article suggests that one of the standard arguments we are hearing, and we have now heard before both…”

“the writer of this article suggests that one of the standard arguments we are hearing, and we have now heard before both the committees--the Judiciary Committees in the House and the Senate--that have taken testimony on a balanced budget amendment, have come from people like Alice Rivlin who, in testimony for the White House as the Budget Director, suggests that we cannot possibly strive to balance the budget because, she suggests, that when purchasing power falls in the private sector--in other words referencing a recession-- that the Federal budget must be there to stimulate, to cushion the slide, to cushion the downfall. She and others have used that as a standard argument, that under the ``straitjacket of a balanced budget amendment, the Federal Government will not have that kind of flexibility. As a result, recessions will become deeper, verging on to depressions. Certainly our citizens will suffer as a result of it.'' That is what she and other economists believe. They would argue that is largely the substantial majority of belief embodied in the community of economists in our Nation today. I would like to argue differently. James Bennett, who is an economist at George Mason University, along with 235 other economists, have signed a letter supporting a balanced budget amendment of the very kind that the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate has brought forth that we will begin debate on next week.”