I oppose putting this type of requirement in the Constitution and I would like to tell you why. The Constitution did not create our budget problems and changing it will not solve them. Rather--solving our budget problems will require an exercise of political will which is not dependent on the Constitution and cannot be engendered by the Constitution. The Constitution is our most valuable governing document and it should not be altered without extreme care. I believe there are three very fundamental problems with putting a balanced budget requirement in the U.S. Constitution. My first objection concerns the manner in which this addition would change the nature of our Constitution. The second involves the change in the balance of powers between the three branches of government which I believe would result from this type of constitutional requirement. And, my third objection relates to the change in the balance of power within the legislative branch under some of the proposals.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the balanced budget amendment during a House committee discussion.
Share
More from Martin Sabo
I have to say to my friend from Minnesota this instruction relates to discretionary spending, which is a little over a third of the budget. Its impact is significant on discretionary spending, which is a part of the budget that we also put…
That is right, but there are still significant parts of the country which would be asked to pay substantially more than actual costs. I have always tried to understand that rationalization. Over 95 percent of the counties, the actual costs…
The proposal before us has been promoted as family-friendly and fiscally responsible. Let us focus on just one provision that puts the lie to those claims. This proposal would charge market rates for the power supplied by three of the…
I am curious what the gentleman is doing with farm programs, because as we read the budget, in 1996, it produces a billion four of revenue to the Federal Government.





