WASHINGTON -- As the Senate moves toward a vote Tuesday on the proposed balanced budget constitutional amendment, Maryland's two Democratic senators remain strongly opposed to the initiative.
Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes' opposition to the amendment, a key element in the Republicans' "Contract with America," is both philosophical and uncompromising.
He says the amendment would promote economic instability and retard economic growth as well as the government's ability to deal with recessions. He further insists that it would transform the American democratic system from majority to minority rule.
"They have all these supermajority requirements in this amendment," he said, referring to the three-fifths vote by which Congress could override the amendment and spend more money than it takes in.
"This flies in the face of the fundamental decision made in the Constitution that a [simple] majority should rule," he said.
For Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, the issue is protecting the future of the generation that "saved Western civilization" in World War II -- veterans and Social Security pensioners.
Mrs. Mikulski said she won't vote for the amendment unless it exempts Social Security revenue -- a move already rejected by Republicans -- as well as money for veterans' medical treatment and disability payments.
Supporters of the balanced budget amendment assert that only a constitutional stricture can force the federal government to live within its means. They further insist that failure to do so could well lead to spiraling budget deficits that would become a back-breaking burden to future generations.
House Republicans made the amendment a centerpiece in their "Contract with America" campaign document last fall, and GOP senators have since rallied to the proposal.
Senate Democrats earlier this month tried but failed to insert a provision into the balanced budget measure that would have placed the Social Security trust fund off-limits for future deficit reduction.
Republican senators, in beating back the move, maintained that the greatest threat to Social Security was the impact of the mounting national debt.
GOP leaders have said they do not plan to use Social Security funds to balance the budget. But they retained the option to do so by not including a prohibition in the proposed amendment.
As the Senate vote approached, the scramble for votes has grown more intense. Late last week, two more Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Joseph Biden of Delaware, promised to vote for the Republican measure.
Sixty-seven of the Senate's 100 votes, a two-thirds majority, are required to approve the amendment. If the amendment is passed, it goes to the states. Three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures must ratify it for it to become part of the Constitution.
Among Mr. Sarbanes' arguments against the amendment is that it would deprive the federal government of the power to regulate the economy in a way to stimulate economic growth or to work to lift the country out of recession.
"When the economy goes soft you start to run a deficit because you have to pay out large amounts of unemployment," he said. "If you try to balance the budget in those circumstances you only drive the recession down further."
The senator also argues that the Constitution, having been amended only 27 times in the past 206 years, should be reserved for statements of fundamental principle, not amendments which can be waived, as the current amendment can be, if circumstances require.
In a speech earlier this month, he said the proposed amendment is a "statement that budget balance is not an enduring principle, but a matter of current judgment."
He added: "No other constitutional principle -- free speech, individual rights, equal protection -- can be waived by a three-fifths vote of both houses. We do not have other provisions in the Constitution that are waivable."