The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

THERE ARE JUST TWO SPECIFIC PROPOSALS THAT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE PUBLIC want passed by Congress: a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and another limiting members' terms.

The balanced-budget amendment (or BBA, as it's called) is a promise masquerading as a policy, so naturally its chances are bright. It pledges fiscal discipline, but only tomorrow -- which in the world of the federal budget never comes. Passing this "do-nothing amendment," says Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, "will let us proclaim victory, vent built-up public pressure and withdraw once again from the fight for a balanced budget." For even if it passes, as Kassebaum says, "circumventing it will be routine."

As a BBA seems likely because it's painless, term limits seem doomed because they're painful. There's no mystery here: those with power rarely relinquish it voluntarily. So while most members of Congress favor limits rhetorically, many are intent on ensuring that limits never become law. These members are like St. Augustine, who prayed to be given the virtue of chastity -- but not yet.

Although the BBA and term limits are substantively different, they are logically twinned; the rationale for the former supports enacting the latter. Consider how the case for a BBA is made in Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America": "Congress has shown itself both unwilling and incapable of balancing the budget. A constitutional amendment is necessary to force lawmakers to do what, on their own, they cannot."

Well, that's it exactly. The books are in the red because members of Congress fear that making the tough choices required to achieve balance could curtail their careers. But if they could only serve briefly, perhaps they would do their duty rather than prattle on about a vacuous contrivance like the BBA.

The argument over term limits has raged ever since Thomas Jefferson lost his attempt to include them in the Constitution. Today Bill Clinton has joined those who are worried about proscribing voter choice. Other critics insist that not all old blood is bad blood, and that's right: many members are individually competent. As an institution, though, Congress is too often paralyzed, as the BBA subterfuge illustrates.

The dissonance between the people and their leaders on term limits is deafening. Limit proposals have passed overwhelmingly in every state in which they have been on the ballot (22 so far), but a dozen term-limit bills were introduced in the past Congress and none was debated, even at the subcommittee level. That's changing now, but artifice is the rule. Some Democrats favor retroactivity: members already at the limit would be forced out immediately. Others of both parties call for exempting sitting members altogether. Gingrich's dance is the most intricate. Newt, himself a 16-year veteran, says he wants a 12-years-and-you're-out provision, whereas most limit supporters favor a six-year cap. What's possible, then, is numerous House votes on varying schemes, with none garnering the 290 yeas needed. "That's the idea," concedes a G.O.P. Congressman. "You fulfill the contract's promise to vote on the issue -- there's no pledge of actual passage -- while minimizing the chances of its becoming law. As Newt says, if you're artful, 'you can favor public policy without having to be a martyr.' "

Too bad, if that's the way it plays out, because the reformist zeal sweeping Congress today will probably dissipate before long. As the new members eager for change graduate into the permanent ruling Establishment, they won't want to leave either.