February 3, 2010 in Opinion

Smart Bombs: Careful what you wish for

• Print
• Email
• Share

A Balanced Budget Amendment has been the hobby horse of many politicians who want to pose as budget hawks. It got a lot of attention during the Contract With America campaign of congressional Republicans before the 1994 midterm elections. Because it would be a change to the U.S. Constitution, it would require the assent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and the ratification of three-fourths of the states. In 1995, the amendment passed the House and came within one vote of passing the Senate. It hasn’t been seriously considered ever since.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., is touting this as a solution to today’s deficit issue, though he opposes any tax increases to help achieve the goal. In fact, he calls for tax cuts. He is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2012.

Let’s say such an amendment is already in place. Could today’s deficit be tamed before the end of the fiscal year without raising taxes? Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, who has worked in Republican administrations, lays out the challenge:

“It’s doubtful that Mr. Pawlenty has any clue as to the composition of federal spending. In FY (fiscal year) 2009, we would have had to abolish every discretionary spending program, including national defense, to balance the budget and that still wouldn’t have been enough without a penny of higher revenues, as he insists. We would have had to cut more than $300 billion out of Medicare and Social Security as well. Good luck with that.”

This is the enormity of the federal deficits. It’s not just a matter of reducing spending in the future. We already bought a bunch of stuff (two wars, tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit, banking bailout, stimulus package, etc.) that we need to pay for. So whenever you hear politicians talking about constitutional amendments or spending freezes or tax cuts, ask them how this pays off the current balance.

Perhaps the proverbial kitchen table discussion would help illuminate matters:

Dad: “We have some serious household budget issues to discuss. We’ve maxed out the credit cards. We need to pay them off. By the way, your mom and I have decided to bring in less money. Who has ideas?”

Daughter: “I don’t need that new laptop.”

Son: “We could cancel the premium cable channels.”

Mom: “I can forgo the kitchen remodeling.”

Dad: “OK, but what about the current balance?”

(Several moments of awkward silence, then …)

Daughter: “I could drop out of college.”

Son: “We could sell the TVs.”

Mom: “We could sell the house.”

Dad: “Now you’re talking! But we’re still short. I suppose we could try to bring in more money.”

Must be an election year. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gays and lesbians in the military is in the news again. President Barack Obama has called for a Pentagon commission to unravel this policy and openly integrate all service members, but the panel would not act for at least a year.

A slow rollout is fine with U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who faces a possible challenge on his right from former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Three years ago, McCain said he would accede to the wishes of military brass. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen spoke in favor of the change. Afterward, McCain said he was disappointed in the testimony of both. He called the policy “imperfect but effective.” A McCain spokeswoman told the Washington Post that this was not a flip-flop because the panel had yet to finish its work.

To recap, the president wants to end it, because it is wrong. But he wants the military to spend a year on the issue. McCain wants to keep it but is willing to change his mind when the panel issues a finding.

So what accounts for such displays of courage? Don’t ask.

Smart Bombs is written by Associate Editor Gary Crooks and appears Wednesdays and Sundays on the Opinion page. Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or at (509) 459-5026.

One comment on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Gary D Rhodes on February 03 at 11:27 a.m.

  Living in Alaska in the early 80’s, I fully realized that there is no limit on wonderful ways for the government to spend money.
  Fortunately, regulation kept politicians from getting their hands on the Permanent Fund.

  The way it is now, if we hear that Scranton got a new bike path built by the federal government because Representative Murtha put in an ear-mark, we wonder why McMorris didn’t get federal money to finish the Centennial Trail.
  Using your example, the son would get the premium channels, while the daughter is told to forget it.

  We need to stop all spending that is not lawfully authorized.