Legislating Responsibility

President Clinton tried to use his State of the Union Address to inculcate the patriotic ideal of "contribution" into the hearts and minds of American citizens. But our "contribution" (read: more and more taxes) will amount to unnecessary and painful sacrifice unless Congress is forced to "contribute" something just as Crucial: fiscal discipline and responsibility.

Senator Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) crystallized the current problem with the federal government: "Congress has demonstrated it's incapable of controlling its insatiable appetite to spend money."

After years of irresponsible spending, Americans must demand that Congress exhibit the type of "change" that Clinton called for during the presidential campaign.

Responsibility is what the President asks us to embrace. And in recent polls, most Americans (about 60 percent) are willing to contribute higher taxes as long as tax revenue goes toward deficit reduction. As citizens (and taxpayers) we must demand similar responsibility from Congress, the institution that controls the national purse.

The President's proposed plan would trim the deficit by $473 billion over the next five years through higher taxes and spending cuts. We can be sure that taxes will be raised, but why should we believe that spending will be cut? When taxes have been raised in the past, the Democratic Congress has just spent the money, ignoring the soaring deficit. Ross Perot colorfully captured the essence of the current phenomenon: "Giving Congress more money is like giving a friend who is trying to stop drinking a liquor store."

During the last few months, Clinton's economic plan has undergone some disturbing changes. We hear less and less of the spending cuts Clinton mentioned during his campaign. We hear far more about proposed tax increases--including new taxes the President seems to be inventing daily. What is a B.T.U. anyway?

If we ever hope to achieve the prosperity which President Clinton promises, then we must address the irresponsible mentality of our federal government. We must mandate fiscal discipline. To use President Clinton's language, more of the same just won't do.

An efficient and practical way to ensure this Congressional fiscal responsibility is a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. The President expressed in his speech last Wednesday that solving the national debt is a fundamental priority.

However, during his campaign-and even two weeks ago in in his town hall meeting--Clinton said he didn't believe that the balanced-budget amendment would be the proper solution to the deficit crisis. And in his State of the Union Address he did not once mention the amendment, even as a potential part of his economic agenda.

Yet, how do we ever expect to solve the deficit crisis if we can't count on the federal government to do the bare minimum of balancing the national books? And what could be a more certain way to ensure that Congress doesn't run any more budget deficits than mandating such behavior?

The President usually puts skeptical citizens at east by referring to the fact that he balanced every budget while Governor of Arkansas. He declared himself a "New Democrat" during the campaign, proudly proclaiming his fiscal restraint.

We were all impressed by Governor Clinton. Instead, we should have been impressed by the Arkansas constitution, which contains a balanced budget amendment.

Perhaps the President considers the amendment issue an unnecessary national reform which Republicans are using to criticize his administration. This scenario is clearly invalid. Many Republicans do support the amendment. However, so does Independent Ross Perot. And so does bleeding-heart Rep. Joseph. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and liberal Senator Paul Simon (D-III.). Already, 240 members of the House of Representatives have signed on as sponsors to the current amendment proposal. In the last session of Congress, the balanced-budget amendment was only nine votes short of passage in the House. And thirty states--only four short of the necessary two-thirds--have already called for a constitutional convention to assemble to discuss adopting the amendment.

Maybe the President fears potential national emergencies that would require Congress to break a balanced budget amendment. Surely not. The amendment proposal would require a balance federal budget beginning in 1999, which would not hold in wartime or if three-fifths of Congress approved specific deficit spending to counter any catastrophes.

At the moment, opponents of the amendment, like port-addicted Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, can defend their tenuous position only by offering silly one-liners ("It's a quack pill") and obscure metaphors ("It's as poisonous as the poison that Hannibal carried in his ring or Demosthenes carried in his pen"). That is certainly interesting language, but it does not constitute a valid argument against such a necessary bipartisan measure of fiscal discipline.

The merits of the amendment should no longer be a serious issue. At this point, we should be asking why the new President isn't encouraging such necessary reform.

As President, Clinton can prove instrumental in securing the necessary votes this time around to pass the balanced budget amendment through both houses of the Democratic Congress (with two-thirds majorities) and then through three-fourths of state legislatures.

We all know that Clinton demands responsibility and sacrifice from Americans everywhere. The campaign mantra of "change" has been replaced by a new one: "contribution." And most Americans are willing to accept "shared sacrifice." However, Americans deserve more than buzzwords. We deserve serious fiscal discipline from our irresponsible federal government.