OCR Text |
Show i inrrx'D OI5LIGATOKY BUDGET BALANCE OK "FLEXIBILITY" Probability is that the federal budgets for fiscal 1982 and 1983 will be in deep deficit. Naturally, this prospect will influence many business and investment in-vestment decisions this year and next, and certainly it will greatly intensify interest in proposals that would require a balanced budget. Awaiting action by Congress are various bills proffering amendments to the Constitution that would require Congress and the President to come up with a balanced budget annually. Some versions being suggested put it right on the line and, if approved on Capitol Hill, would mandate such balance with no ands, ifs or buts. Others are somewhat more pragmatic, hence include exc-petions exc-petions and-or loopholes designed to make the desired Constitutional Amendment more "tempting" and basically more practical. POWER OF THE PURSE Of course, Congress is understandably un-derstandably reluctant to relinquish or even restrict its budget-making prerogatives which themselves are deeply rooted in the constitution. However, seven as the solons continue to recoil from a decision on a budget-balance budget-balance mechanism, events are progressing that could force them into action. The fact is that we are edging closer to a Constitutional Convention, the convocation of an assembly authorized to suggest amendments to the Constitution Con-stitution which would then be sent to the states for ratification in the same way that those approved by Congress are submitted to the states, with 38 needed to ratify. Last month, Alaska became the 31st state to send a formal application to Congress asking for a Constitutional Convention that would consider an amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. At this time only three additional states are needed to make up the total of 34 that would force Congress to call such a convention. That quota would be reached this year if Washington, Kentucky, and Missouri were each to pass pending resolutions. NO SURE THING However, even if the goal of 34 petitioning states were to be reached this year, an early meeting of a Constitutional Con-stitutional Convention still would not be assured. Petitions for such a convention con-vention from states which favor this route to obtain a cap on the federal budget are not uniform. They differ in language and other details. Unquestionably, these variations will be cited to challenge the validity of the petitions. Hence, a number of state petitions will eventually be challenged in the federal courts with the issue likely to go to the Supreme Court for final settlement. CONGRESSIONAL QUANDARY The idea of a Constitutional Convention Con-vention is disturbing to Congress. There is concern lest such a convention, when seated, might try to propose amendments on issues other than a balanced budget. The Constitution itself is silent on whether a Constitutional Con-stitutional Convention would have plenary power or be restricted to dealing only with the precise issue for which it was called. That is a point which might well need elucidation by the courts unless Congress uses its broad legislative powers to define the convention's limits and lay down procedural rules to be followed. And even these might become a subject for litigation too. Meanwhile, Congress will also be trying to reach a consensus on a joint resolution setting forth its own proposal for a Constitutional Amendment mandating an annual budget balance. Such consensus may be difficult to reach for it will entail hard compromises. com-promises. And whenever Congress does agree on this, the resultant resolution should still have to be ratified by 38 states. So mandated budget balances so eagerly desired by so many is probably still years away. |