79-03-A6
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1979
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Constitutional Amendment[edit]
Transcript[edit]One of the most frequently asked questions these days has to do with the tax revolt fever sweeping the country. Of course, Proposition 13 in California is still the best known showcase exhibit but there is plenty of additional evidence that· taxes and the entire subject of government spending are very much on people's minds. Polls show that 73 percent of the people support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget "except in times of emergency such as war. Of course such an amendment won't mean a thing unless those emergencies are well defined. Where government spending is concerned, a loophole is an open door. But going on with the poll, two-thirds of the people think it is more important for government to cut spending than to cut taxes. Almost 60 percent felt that cutting government spending would be a major step in controlling inflation. My own belief is that cutting taxes will have the effect of cutting spending if government can no longer run a deficit and that will bring the end of inflation. Lost in the hullabaloo about Proposition 13 is the fact that several states in the '78 election--helped by a national committee on tax limitation--had ballot measures calling for a percentage limit on the amount of earnings the state could take in taxes, Most of these passed. Now, a total of 25 state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to end federal deficit spending. And in Washington the National Tax Limitation committee made up of business people and such noted economists as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, has unveiled a proposed constitutional amendment to control government spending as an alternative to requiring a balanced budget. I hope we won't lose sight of the main target in a debate over which route we take to amend the constitution. Some want to call a constitutional convention. Others want to go the legislative way, with Congress passing an amendment to then be ratified by the states. Among these latter, voices have been raised warning of danger that a constitutional convention would open the door to all manner of proposed amendments. In my view, those who warn of this show little faith in our democratic procedures. The Constitution provides for both methods and the convention is a safety valve giving the people a chance to act if Congress refuses to. Frankly I'd prefer the legislative way, but maybe it will take the threat of a convention to bring that about. Any number of amendments to end deficit spending have been introduced in Congress and buried in one committee. Why shouldn't the committees learn that unless they let these proposals go to the floor for debate and vote there will be a constitutional convention? This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
