The fact that Colorado Sen. Mark Udall has a new idea for a balanced budget amendment should be welcome news at a time when we desperately need some welcome news from our legislators.
Unfortunately, it’s not good news at all. In fact, it’s very bad news. Udall was the only Democrat to co- sponsor what was called the Shelby- Udall balanced budget amendment. That was seen by many, including the Denver Post editorial board, as sign of a real breakthrough.
In joining Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., Udall showed a willingness to put party differences aside to help solve our fiscal mess.
But the mess, as you must know, has gotten only messier. And Shelby has more or less abandoned his version of the amendment to back a new Hatch-Cornyn version.
Udall was never completely comfortable with the Shelby amendment, saying it needed adjusting and that he signed on because it was the most reasonable version available. But he rightly calls the Hatch-Cornyn bill “Draconian” and decided that he had no choice but to fashion his own.
Udall’s spokesperson said the senator hoped that a dozen or so Democrats would sign on and that Republicans would see it as a reasonable compromise. She then admitted that was an “optimistic” scenario.
There’s little reason for optimism right now. While we favor a balanced budget amendment, we can also see the dangers it might present. At a time when the House threatens to send the nation toward default rather than accept a $4 trillion deficit-reduction deal because it includes $800 billion in tax hikes, there’s little hope for compromise here.
Udall’s version of the amendment calls for a balanced budget each year unless three-fifths of each house of Congress waives the requirement. It also puts Social Security back in the so-called lockbox and doesn’t allow it to be raided to balance the budget.
The House is expected to vote next week on its “cap, cut and balance” bill that calls for a balanced budget amendment that would cap expenditures at 18 percent of GDP. We spend 24 percent of GDP today.
Udall’s bill does not have a cap. That’s a game-killer for most Republicans. But, it turns out, there are bigger games in town just now.
No one’s balanced budget amendment will get out of Congress. And even if it did, you couldn’t get three-fourths of state legislatures to approve it.
Still, we welcome the conversation, particularly if it extends to dealing with entitlements. But we also recognize that in a lean year for revenues, those interested in cutting, rather than reforming, entitlements could use the amendment as an excuse to puncture the safety net.
All you need to do is look at the debt ceiling fight to understand the stakes.
In a news conference, President Obama dismissed the need for an amendment. He said we need balanced budgets, but we “don’t need a constitutional amendment to do that; what we need to do is our jobs.”
As we watch the Washington circus, we fear it may take more than an amendment to make that happen.
