Brown vs. the Board

In the past few weeks, California Governor Jerry Brown has phoned five members of TIME'S Board of Economists. Why, he asked, did they oppose his call for a constitutional convention to devise an amendment that would force Congress to balance the budget? Recalls one of the economists: "When you say to him, 'Look, it just doesn't make a damn bit of sense,' his comeback is, 'Yes, but I want some amendment in the Constitution that reflects fiscal responsibility.' " The California legislature, by a vote of 12 to 8 in its ways and means committee, declined last week to join the other 28 states that have endorsed a constitutional convention. But the economists agree that Brown has caught on to quite an issue because there is tremendous popular pressure rising in the U.S. to do something to contain inflationary Government spending. Politicians everywhere hear complaints from their constituents about the Government's inability to control the budget. So legislators are seeking advice from economists on ways to put legal limits on deficits.

Every member of TIME'S Board of Economists opposes a constitutional amendment that would require balancing the budget in each year. Similarly, all shudder at the thought of a constitutional convention, at which extremists might bring up all sorts of far-out schemes to change the Constitution. Said Beryl Sprinkel: "I don't want to lose the freedom we've got, so I am very concerned about having a constitutional convention." However, added David Grove:

"In principle it is a good idea to have constitutional restrictions on expenditures, but it is the burden of those who advocate this method to come up with a way of achieving it that will stand careful scrutiny."

Board members pointed out that an amendment to balance the budget would straitjacket the economy, particularly during a recession, when deficit spending often is prudent to spur a recovery. Otto Eckstein noted that because tax revenues fall during a recession, Congress would have to raise taxes in order to balance the budget, and that would bury the economy even deeper.

Republicans Sprinkel and Murray Weidenbaum would favor an amendment that would peg the growth in Government spending to growth in the gross national product. Says Weidenbaum: "This gets to the heart of the matter, which is to slow down the growth of the Government." One danger is that the G.N.P. is the product of many estimates and is often revised; if spending were linked to the G.N.P., politicians would be tempted to twist and bend that number.

Alan Greenspan would endorse an amendment specifying that "all money bills, budget authority, appropriations and outlays would require a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress." Trouble is, that would give veto power to one-third of Congress and seriously undermine the principle of majority rule. Yet, while all the ideas have flaws, Greenspan argues: "If the Congress does not respond to what is now in the process of occurring out in the grass roots, we will end up with a constitutional convention, and I think that would be a bad mistake."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.