PASS THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

The U.S. Senate last week began debate on one of the most controversial issues facing Congress this year -- a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced federal budget. The amendment is proposed in a bill sponsored chiefly by U.S. Sen. Paul Simon, D-Ill., a longtime proponent of a balanced federal budget. Its passage is imperative if this nation is to regain any degree of the fiscal responsibility that it lacked since 1969.

As in 1986, when the Senate held its first direct vote on the amendment and it failed by a single tally, opponents are spewing forth the same divergent rhetoric: on the one hand, that a balanced budget amendment would result in debilitating program cuts and huge increased taxes; and on the other, that an amendment is meaningless as Congress would still have to make the tough decisions -- decisions it has been unwilling and unable to make up until now.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who leads the opposition, is trying to convince people that Congress will balance the budget on its own, and that passage of the amendment would subject every government program to deep cost cuts. Byrd, one of the worst porkbarrel spenders on capitol hill, particularly likes to single out as likely budget-cut targets Social Security, veterans' hospitals, veterans' compensation and pensions, education and health programs, and law enforcement -- those that most directly touch American taxpayers.

The Clinton administration also would have us believe that the legislative branch will take it upon itself to reduce the federal deficit, which temporarily has dipped below $200 billion. To his credit, the president pushed through a deficit-reduction plan last year (based heavily on increased taxes), but projections of a rising deficit through the end of the century persist, actually accelerating after 1987 under the Clinton plan.

Moreover, Clinton troops, who have already leveled the largest tax increase in American history, argue that balancing the budget would force the president to enact additional new tax increases. How surprising!

The truth is, since 1969, when the surplus ran $3.2 billion, the federal government annually has spent more than it has taken in -- whether taxes were high or low. With that kind of track record, how can anyone believe that Congress will exercise the fiscal restraints necessary to balance the budget? After all, overspending, borrowing and raising taxes have become a way of life in Washington, and until Congress is forced to balance the budget it simply won't get done.

Byrd's warning of deep cuts in social programs accompanying implementation of a balanced budget is nothing more than a scare tactic. He doesn't talk about a balanced-budget amendment paving the way for a reduction in much if not all of the unnecessary spending the federal government is so well known for. Nor does he tell us that with a balanced-budget amendment, the many pork-barrel projects that slide through the senate appropriations committee, which he chairs -- the kinds that help get lawmakers re-elected and indebted to him-- might also have to go.

Byrd says that if the amendment were enforced "turbulent economic and social results would ensue," and again he pointed to Social Security, saying a higher retirement age with reduced payments and higher taxes on benefits would result. In the senator's own words, perhaps it's going to take some "turbulent economic and social results" to wake up some of the big-spenders in Washington to the fact that sooner or later the federal deficit will be uncontrollable.

In terms of simple economics, interest on the federal deficit this year alone will run $213 billion, an amount more than the deficit itself. If the $200 billion deficit could be eliminated today, taxpayers would realize immediate savings in interest, and hard telling how much more would be realized through the end of this decade as the deficit continues to grow. In a $1.6 trillion federal budget, $200 billion isn't that much.

As millions of people across this land know, to live within their means requires attentiveness to spending. And that often means doing without, something the federal government has not learned to do.

As with most legislation, Simon's bill contains some loopholes, the largest of which is a clause that would allow Congress to deficit spend, for whatever reason, with a three-fifths majority vote of both houses. At least a three-fifths majority would be difficult to achieve short of national emergency or going to war, and Simon's proposed amendment already provides waiver of a balanced budget in wartime.

A more serious threat to Simon's proposed amendment surfaced Wednesday when Sen. Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., proposed an alternative measure that would provide wavering colleagues with political cover to vote against the measure. Simon himself conceded that Reid's amendment to his measure "has the potential to do some harm."

Reid's less-stringent version would let senators inoculate themselves against damage at the polls by voting for his watered-down alternative, which is expected to fail, and then vote without risk against Simon's more stringent amendment, saying, "If only my concerns would have been addressed, I would have voted for it..." Already the groundwork is being laid for such political wimpiness, as over the weekend a handful of heretofore undecided Democrats have come out against Simon's proposal calling it "flawed."

The alternative, among other things, would lift the balanced-budget constraints during a recession, exempt capital investments such as buildings and highways -- most often the pork-barrel projects that help lawmakers get re-elected -- bar Social Security funds from being used to balance the budget, and drop the requirement for a three-fifths vote to overspend. Capital investments would be anything Congress says they are.

Reid's version is nothing more than an attempt at keeping overspending alive -- and we should keep an eye on those senators who take the cheap way out by supporting it.

Families and businesses don't borrow money if they have the resources to handle purchases on a pay-as-you-go basis. Why should the federal government? The actions of Congress over the past 25 years show that it has no intention of balancing the federal budget. So it must be forced to do so, and Simon's proposal would do just that.