Wyoming Council, Residents Hear About County 911 System 
Representatives Of The Luzerne County Emergency Services Department Spoke To 
Council And About 10 Residents Wednesday Night About Luzerne County's 911 
System.

38 People Bid For Detective Job

Wednesday, February 05, 1997 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 





Balanced Budget Amendment would send economy into free fall &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 For a nation addicted to reducing complex major issues to mere slogans, the
call for an amendment to the United States Constitution requiring a balanced
federal budget is typical. Like most slogans, it promises far more than can
be, or anyone would want to see, deliveredThere is no doubting the popularity
of the idea of a balanced budget. The current national debt of more than $5
trillion -- more than 80 percent of it a product of the Reagan-Bush years --
and the prospect of paying it off has convinced most taxpayers of the need to
put a harness on the Congress. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is illuminating that the party whose presidents oversaw that increase in
the national debt, now concedes in its support of the proposed amendment that
the Congress -- even though Republicans control it -- cannot be trusted to
conduct the government's fiscal affairs prudently, and therefore need to be
governed by law rather than by conscience. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 What they have put together and muscled through the Senate Judiciary
Committee is uncompromising. If adopted twice by 2/3 majorities by both
chambers and then by 3/4 of the state legislatures, it would require the
federal budget to be in balance beginning in the year 2002 and every year
thereafter unless exempted for a specific year by a 3/5 vote of both chambers
of the Congress. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 There are many things wrong with such an amendment. Budgets are based on an
assumption that revenue and expenditures will occur as predicted. We have only
to look at the enormous and enormously expensive natural disasters that
already have occurred in the West and Northwest, in the northern Plains
states, and in the South with this fiscal year less than six months old. Add
to those the unplanned and costly demands already being made for U.S. military
commitments in Africa, the Balkans and Asia. How could anyone predict all such
needs and budgeted in advance for them? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Budget predictions cannot anticipate a sudden collapse of the stock market,
a rash of bank and lending institution failures, a recession that cuts revenue
and increases the demand for services. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Presumably 3/5 of the members of both chambers of the Congress would
recognize the need and act responsibly. But if one can presume that, then what
is the need for the proposed amendment? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The proposed amendment, by using the Social Security Trust Fund and all
other such dedicated funds as pure income to the general fund for government
operations, would -- in economic emergencies as have occurred several times in
just this century -- jeopardize the pension, medical and assistance payments
which Social Security and the other funds are obligated to deliver. Such
failures would only vastly increase the emergency. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The difficulty for supporters of the amendment -- and one they so far have
chosen to ignore -- is that if the trust funds were protected, it would be
necessary to come up with at least $465 billion more in program cuts or in
additional taxes to cover the balance. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said, "It
could make attaining a real balance impossible." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 As if these and other consequences were not enough to reveal how
irresponsible and unworkable such an amendment would be, the hypocrisy of the
whole effort is underscored by the concurrent commitment by both the
Republicans and the Democrats to a simultaneous program of tax cuts. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 In fact, there is a bidding war underway in which one side claims it would
make only responsible tax cuts -- tax cuts for the middle-income folks --
while the other claims it not only would give a much larger tax cut but would
give relief to the poorest taxpayers as well as to the wealthiest. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The very idea of cutting taxes when the proposed budget would be balanced
on the backs of the poor, the sick, and the elderly is unconscionable. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Finally, it is ironic that those who see the greatest virtue in a balanced
budget fail to acknowledge that most businesses -- like the current federal
government --operate at least in part with borrowed money in anticipation of
success in developing enough revenue in the years ahead to repay the loans. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 No, the balanced budget amendment is only another slogan, a piece of
campaign rhetoric that like much of its kin, is best forgotten -- for reality
makes it a nightmare. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Tom Bigler is professor of communications at Wilkes University and a Times
Leader columnist. His column appears on Wednesday and Sunday. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Balanced Budget Amendment Would Send Economy Into Free Fall 
For A Nation Addicted To Reducing Complex Major Issues To Mere Slogans, The 
Call For An Amendment To The United States Constitution Requiring A Balanced 
Federal Budget Is Typical. Like Most Slogans, It Promises Far More Than Can 
Be, Or Anyone Would Want To See, Delivered.