Summary

Capitol Hill

Source CONUS Archive
Record ID 247786
Story Slug Democratic Caucus / Balanced Budget / Stakeout (1992)
Location WASHINGTON, DC
Format TVD
Date 6/4/1992
Archive Time 24:40
TRT 4:49
Supers Congressman Leon Panetta, D-CA Charles Stenholm, D-TX House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-MO
Video Description Stakeout sound
Description Capitol Hill
Script (SUGGESTED TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO) The basic argument I've been making time and time, again, is that if you want to make the tough choices with regards to getting a balanced budget, those choices are there. And you don't need a constitutional amendment to make those choices. And what I fear is that members who advocate a constitutional amendment will make that vote, and then not be there to make the tough choices on policy, to in fact get you to a balanced budget. We know what the choice is our CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, on the issue of the options. And I guess the greatest concern I have and what I shared with the members is my greatest fear is that members will take the easy way out, vote for a constitutional amendment, run and hide until after the election, and hope that somebody else some other Congress, some other president has to deal with the tough choices. That's my greatest fear. 01:02 Today, what I hope to do is to work on an enforcement mechanism that will, in fact, develop procedures to get us to a balanced budget. This constitutional amendment, unfortunately, has no teeth right now. And the members who don't want to debate policy decisions, who don't want to debate an enforcement mechanism, are basically saying they don't want teeth in this constitutional amendment. And so what I'm trying to do is to basically develop an enforcement mechanism set a set series of deficit targets between now and 1997. That would get us to a balanced budget, that we would have to have budget resolutions, the President would have to offer a budget resolution that reflects those targets, that Congress would have to do the same thing. And that if we failed, which meant both, both cuts into in savings, in other words, savings to be achieved through cuts across the board. And in addition to that, I have an element that would require tax increases as part of that, and what Formula Two thirds spending 1/3 taxes. Basically, we're still working with the formula. But as I've said, I would advocate two thirds should come out of spending savings and 1/3 out of revenue taxes would go up. Basically a surtax on individual and corporate taxes. 02:23 I think there's several things. First of all, I think that if people think there's anger and frustration out there with the public right now, if we pass a constitutional amendment, and then don't follow it with the tough choices to get us there, I think they'll even be greater distrust among the American American people about our system of guttural court to decide constitutional issues here. I mean, we have a sensitive economy, as it is, we've got a $5 trillion economy on our hands, to tie it up in this kind of constitutional crisis is frankly, nuts. 03:08 Yeah. We still have 290 votes and the battle is on and it's going to be a very open and honest debate. And, yeah, we have the votes, some of the opponents. If there are second thoughts, I have not had anyone expressing those to me, personally. All I know is what I read in the paper and hear that some are having second thoughts. Obviously, the opposition is building and it's very strong. And that's didn't come as a surprise to any of us. We knew it was going to be a tough fight. You're not going to solve our nation's deficit problems. Easy. 03:47 Well, that's I respectfully disagree with that we're leaving the choices that has to that has to have a presupposition that we're not going to make those choices. If we amend the Constitution, those of us who believe that we need the constitutional restraint believe that that's the one thing we need to give us the courage the backbone to do what we have been unable to do. 04:19 Well, I think there was a Lord if not to a balanced budget at the earliest possible moment, Democrats are for balancing the budget, and for stopping the hemorrhage of red ink that we've seen in this country over the last 12 years. We are for doing it, I think, by not giving the minority as much I think it depends upon which amendments survives, but I think they're there.
Not everything listed in the CONUS Archive is necessarily licensable. Reporter sound/image is not licensable
}