I have become convinced that in order to avoid the havoc that we face as we deal with this budgetary dilemma facing the country, we need to place a guarantee in the Constitution that there can never be such a period of irresponsibility when it comes to spending in this country as we saw in the 1980's, so that future generations will not have the dilemma that we face today. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I approach this debate differently than I might have in the past. For me it is not a matter of whether or not there should be a balanced budget amendment. I believe recent history in this Chamber shows that indeed, we must have a balanced budget amendment. The debate at this point is how do we best accomplish this objective, what is the most appropriate balanced budget requirement that we can place in the Constitution of this country.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for a balanced budget amendment during a debate on the federal deficit.
Share
More from Earl Pomeroy
I believe that when it is a securitized issue spread around with no remote concept of insurable interest, you raise profound questions about whether or not this tax incentive ought to apply anymore.
I just want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you for this hearing and commend this panel in particular.
The thing that really gets me about all the work we've done is we have another lake rise of 2-3 feet bringing a new host of problems that only get more difficult.
It is really on its face absurd. And I appreciate very much the leadership of this Committee in giving us these kinds of fora to have us sit in the sun and dissect it a little bit.





