Timothy Penny: “I think, in reading the two amendments, it should be evident to any legislator serious about enforcing a balanced budget…”

“I think, in reading the two amendments, it should be evident to any legislator serious about enforcing a balanced budget requirement that the only clear choice is the proposal offered by the gentleman from Texas. The alternative sponsored by the gentleman from West Virginia and others, while well-intentioned, falls short in many respects. I believe them to be well-intentioned in their desire to accommodate capital budgeting. It may be fine. It may be accommodated in many State-level balanced budget amendments, but it is not necessary at the Federal level. The only major construction activity at the Federal level today is the Interstate Highway Program, which is handled on a pay-as-you-go basis, through our collection of gas tax revenues. There is no reason to believe any similar commitment by the Federal Government would be likely in the near future. And even if that were the case, certainly, those commitments could also be handled honestly within an annual budget. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from West Virginia also exempts the Social Security trust fund. I do not know of another constitutional amendment that makes reference to an existing law.”