Wednesday, April 17, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.
IN WASHINGTON, D.C., things change so much, they remain the same. Monday's Republican election-year display on the floor of the House of Representatives reminds us of past election games played by the Democrats when they were in power.
It's no wonder that many Americans have become cynical about anything that happens in the city on the Potomac River. Most of us have learned how to handle the frustration in a socially and legally acceptable manner. Others, with less tolerance and oftentimes less education, strike back as members of militia groups or try to isolate themselves from society.
A couple of weeks ago, a majority of Congress openly admitted they couldn't control their pork-barrel habits and gave the chief executive the power to veto their hoggish habits. Of course, along with this line-item veto power, the president will soon be able to play political games when deciding who will get what.
This week, however, 243 members of the House of Representatives outdid themselves and all past political games. They used April 15, income tax-paying day, to stage a show promoting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would require two-thirds majorities in both houses to approve any major tax increases. It's also necessary to have a two-thirds majority to pass a constitutional amendment, and they knew the votes weren't there for the passage of the tax-cap amendment.
The GOP leadership knew the amendment wouldn't pass, but on the advice of political consultants they used the entire final day to pay taxes to promote themselves. Nobody likes taxes, and April 15 certainly isn't a day that millions of Americans cherish or celebrate. It is a great day to attack our income-tax system, even if you know you are barking up a tree where there are nuts but no squirrels.
The proposed amendment passed 243-177, which is 37 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority, so it died as had been predicted but did provide a good backdrop for speeches by politicians trying to resurrect their shaky status among fellow Americans.
If the proposed 28th Amendment was able to pass by two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, it would then be sent for approval of 38 states. The proposed amendment would read: "Any bill, resolution or other legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for final adoption in either House the concurrence of two-thirds the members present, unless that bill, resolution or measure is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimus amount."
Putting aside all the problems the proposed amendment could cause, such as the ability of 34 senators from 17 states, having only 10 to 12 percent of our nation's population, being able to block a tax increase, there are additional questions. When Congress can declare war with a simple majority, send soldiers to their deaths and spend billions of tax dollars, there appears to be a gap in the thinking that the proposed "supermajority" is needed to raise taxes.
If they really want to tamper with the Constitution, wouldn't it make more sense to require a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass spending bills? President Ronald Reagan and a Democrat-controlled Congress passed several tax cuts, but their outrageous spending habits weren't curbed. Why should a constitutional cap on taxes be any different? Our representatives in Washington would then spend us even further into debt and then, for political reasons, refuse to levy taxes to pay the debts. Get out the printing presses and let's make some more money!
So the political boys and girls in the House of Representatives had their fun playing games in Washington this week. They knew their proposed tax amendment wouldn't pass, and many of them admitted it had too many problems to become good law. Nevertheless, the next big taxpayer headache won't come around again until April 15, 1997, and that's long after this gang must face the voters. This was the week the game had to be played.
On the brighter side, the Washington Post reports: "On March 21, for instance, the Treasury Department reported spending and revenue figures for February showing that the deficit for the first five months of fiscal 1996 was $15.2 billion lower than for the same period last year. All the political rhetoric has obscured the fact that year-to-year spending increases have dropped significantly while solid economic growth and higher taxes passed in 1993 have boosted revenue."
Remember that huge debt we have acquired since President Reagan came into office in 1981? Well, if we didn't have to pay the interest on this debt, this year's budget would have a $95 billion surplus.
Most Americans have already concluded that there "ain't no free lunch," but too many of their elected representatives refuse to accept this bit of wisdom when legislating. At least 243 of them found it more fun playing with smoke and mirrors, trying to fool the voters with their proposed amendment on April 15.
archive
