(3 of 4)
A balanced budget is traditional Republican Party doctrine, but the G.O.P. is split on the issue. At a meeting of party officeholders last week in Easton, Md., a constitutional amendment to balance the budget was rejected in favor of one to limit spending. Supporting the balanced-budget amendment were such presidential aspirants as Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, Robert Dole and John Connally. Baker favors a proposal to require a balanced budget unless overruled by a two-thirds vote of both houses. "This formula," he says, "satisfies the principal concerns about a balanced budget by permitting enough flexibility for Congress to approve a deficit in time of economic or military emergency."
Other leading Republicans, including National Party Chairman Bill Brock and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, were opposed. Said Rhodes, who objects to any kind of amendment involving fis cal policy: "I don't like constitutional gimmickry. If the American people want a balanced budget, they should elect a Republican Congress." Rhodes echoes other authorities who believe that the Constitution should not be encumbered with specific policies that can be settled by the normal political process. But the House minority leader was challenged by congressman Bud Shuster, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
Pointing out that 103 of the 159 House R publicans had sponsored some kind of constitutional amendment to achieve a balanced budget, Shuster said of Rhodes:
"I think he is wrong. He is obviously speaking for himself and not for a majority of Republicans." Dole warned that if the Republicans do not soon reach a consensus on the subject, they may for feit the issue to the Democrats. "I'm concerned that this be a Republican issue," said Dole. "But we're about to lose it."
About 65 versions of a budget-balancing amendment have been introduced in Congress. Within a month, the Judiciary Committee in each house will begin hearings with a lengthy list of economists and lawyers, most of whom will warn of the enormous complexities in convening a Constitutional Convention, or in drafting an amendment to bal ance the budget. Says House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino: "I would hope that the people in the states would pause, knowing that a responsible committee of Congress is looking at the matter." Delaying tactics have already begun. Senator Birch Bayh, chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, claims that only 16 of the 27 states voting for a Constitutional Convention have submitted valid petitions. In the case of the other states, he contends, petitions have not been received or have been improperly filed.
Judging by past attempts to call a convention, Congress feels it is justified in reacting slowly. Of three major efforts by the states this century to amend the Constitution by convention, one succeeded in forcing Congress to act; the other two eventually collapsed. At first, Congress resisted petitions from the states for a convention to require the direct election of U.S. Senators, who were then chosen by the state legislatures. But by 1912 enough petitions had arrived to persuade