Not content to let the Republicans win the irresponsibility prize with their unanimous support of the so-called Balanced Budget Amendment, Senate Democrats have come up with a legislative snake that would do them one better. Their proposal would exempt Social Security from the cost-cutting that allegedly would ensue once the constitutional amendment is adopted.
This Democratic gimmick is not intended to be taken seriously. Its purpose is to load up the Balanced Budget Amendment with an objective so contradictory to its stated purpose that even its supporters would flee in panic. Fortunately, it is likely to be rejected in floor debate this week. But in the event it is adopted by lawmakers fearful of offending the American Association for Retired Persons and other gray-power groups, one prediction could be made with a fair degree of confidence: The budget will not be balanced until generational warfare erupts a couple decades in the future.
A sophisticated argument can be made that a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring outlays to match income in each and every fiscal year would make a hash out of the current operation of the Social Security Fund. That's because its financing is calculated over a long period so that surpluses can be built up when there are relatively few retirees to prepare for years when benefit obligations will dwarf intake from payroll taxes. True enough. But the Democratic amendment would hinder Congress from taking steps most economists consider inevitable to head off the future hemorrhaging of the Social Security Fund.
In many ways, the ploy to exempt Social Security from the Balanced Budget Amendment is the Democratic counterpart to Republican efforts to repeal the business cycle. In their onslaught on the Constitution, GOP lawmakers pretend they can ignore the ups and downs of the economy. They cannot. Demand for government services goes up when the economy turns down, and vice versa. Without this fiscal equalizer, you can bet that the business cycle would gyrate in much harsher fashion than it has in the last half century.
The debate on Capitol Hill this year should make clear to all deficit hawks that a vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment is not a vote to balance the budget. The latter can be done without mucking up the Constitution if the Congress and the White House would rein in middle-class entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and farm subsidies).
Instead, Republicans exploit what they accurately consider a win-win political situation while Democrats cater to favored constituency groups whose budget-busting benefits rightly should be means-tested. It is not an edifying spectacle.