4 Opii0n IIIMIOpinion11111111 Page 6 The Michigan Daily Vol. XCII, No. 60-S Ninety-two Years 01 Editorial Freedom Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan A slapfor sense GREAT BRITAIN became the fourt European nation last week to reject th Reagan administration's embargo of America technology for the Soviet gas pipelinet Western Europe. Finally, someone in Congre is trying to undo the damage that embargo he wrought in allied relations. In what one loyal Republican termed a "sla in the face of the President of the Unite States," the House Foreign Affairs Committ voted to repeal the embargo. If the vote was a slap at the president, thens be it. Perhaps the president needed such a sla to make him realize that rigid, but useles ideological principles are no substitute for pragmatic foreign policy. From the start, the embargo was doomedt failure. It was meant to wrangle concession from the Soviets on Polish martial law an delay the project, thus starving the Soviets4 needed hard currency. So far, it has failed on a counts. The embargo has not failed, however,1 severely damage U.S. relations with our alli( in Western Europe, who are ignoring the en bargo anyway. And with his extension of U. grain sales to the Soviet Union, the preside showed his supposed lofty principles can easi be swept away when U.S. economic interes are threatened. If both houses of Congress concur with tf committee and repeal the embargo, th president will surely protest the "crippling" his foreign policy. But since this policy serv( only to rankle U.S. allies, Congress shou move to correct the president where. he hc most obviously been wrong. Thursday, August 12, 1982 The Michigan Daily Only a U.S. to By Mark Gindin Things are getting a little silly. Although that statement could apply to almost every aspect of h life in Washington, D.C., the e recent discussions on the balan- n ced budget amendment deserve inmore ridicule than others. to Actually, such an amendment SS is a long-overdue necessity., as From the inane arguments against the proposal, however, p onegets the idea that any sort of fiscal responsibility by our d nation's leaders is not only un- ee necessary, but merely a political ploy to obtain votes. so MAYBE putting the trend of p the federal budget into historical ~Pperspective will help focus on the s, issue alone. John Kennedy's 1962 a budget was the first one to reach $100 billion. In 1978, Jimmy Car- to ter proposed a federal budget of C $500 billion, and described it as 1s "lean and tight." id To put the size of Carter's of budget into perspective, to spend ill $500 billion in one year would require spending $951,000 every to minute of the year, $57 million per hour, or $1.37 billion each day es of the year, with no time off. n- In 1981, the federal budget was S. more than $650 million. The nt deficit was more than $50 billion, 1y or half of the entire federal budget in 1962. And this year, ts there is talk of a $140 billion deficit. The trend does not look he good. e THE ENORMOUS burden of of the federal budget and the huge deficits have noticeably eS detrimental effects on the ld economy. as As the budget increases, more taxes must be collected, economic productivity slows down due to decreasing disposable income, and high in- terest rates plague the economy because the government has en- tered the borrowing market. Those results we know quite well and are the obvious reasons for eliminating deficits. Ultimately, the federalgover- nment can be no different than households. The family budget should be balanced, expenses should meet revenue, and any deficit should be made up in later years. Meanwhile, the family. faces lean times. No economic theories are valid reasons to allow deficits. PEOPLE argue that the an- swer is not in a constitutional amendment, but electing fiscally responsible representatives. Sin- ce such a miracle has not hap- pened in the past few decades, law can force balance budget 4 there is no reason to expect responsible representatives to magically appear in the near future. Only when balanced budgets are required by law, as in the state of Michigan, can the budget be balanced, and the $1 trillion deficit that has piled up eliminated. There is no other way. So, now what have we got? We have a proposed amendment that has passed-the Senate and should be voted on by the House before the November election. If passed by both Houses, the amendment goes to the states for ratification. The law would become effective two years after that, however. long ratification would take. So, don't worry, there is a transition period. THERE still linger among economists Keynesian ideas of a beneficial budget deficit. A deficit, they say, helps to "prime the pump" and create economic boom times. Of course, Keynes said to pay back the debt sometime; we haven't in the last 20 years. Now, 13 percent of federal expenditures are payment on the national debt, and that figure rises with each deficit. Indeed, there may arise an oc- casion, as happens often with households, that the government will need to go into debt, for whatever reason. As with a household, the decision to do so should require a major debate. In the proposal, there is an allowance for a national debt. If three-fifths of each house agree Source: U.S. Office of Managementand Budget. to such a move, a deficit can be proposed. This mechanism allows for unforseen circumstan- ces, without much risk. SINCE IT is usually impossible for a majority of each house to ever agree to anything, it is unlikely such a move will happen. Also, politicians are reluctant to stand up and vote for a budget deficit. There cannot be a real emergency every year. Logically then, there can be no reason to disapprove of the proposed balanced budget amen- dment. In the end, we must look at politics. This proposal realistically has very little chan- ce of passing the Democratic con- trolled House. But with large numbers of Americans supporting the amen- dment, Congress members would be unwise to oppose such an im- portant and effective law- unless, of course, they want to be voted out of office. Gindin is the summer Daily's editor in chief. Letters and columns represent the opinions of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the attitudes or beliefs of the Daily. 4 4 4 4 I ' WINDOW of VULNERASILrV '