March 7, 1979
Page 4226
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BUDGET
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, JOHN CULVER spoke recently to the Second State Democratic Conference in his home town of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The topic was an important one — whether we should amend our Constitution to require a balanced budget. JOHN'S answer was that we should not.
In a forceful analysis, he said in part:
Simplistic approaches, such as a constitutional convention or a constitutional amendment, are overly rigid and dangerous remedies that on the one hand would trivialize the Constitution and deny Government the flexibility it needs to react quickly to changing conditions, and on the other hand create enormous uncertainties about the very structure of our Government and its ability to function.
JOHN went on to relate this question to the role of the Democratic Party in providing the leadership and the ideas to respond to the hopes and aspirations of all Americans. I believe each of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, ought to reflect on this distinction between leadership and reaction.
I commend JOHN CULVER's thoughts to our colleagues, and ask that the text of his remarks be included in the RECORD.
The remarks follow:
Fellow Democrats: I am extremely proud and encouraged by the turnout for this important meeting. It reflects great credit on all of you who were willing to venture out in the winter weather and to devote a day of your time to substantive discussion. It also reflects credit on our state committee. I might add that in Ed Campbell, Jerry Fitzgerald, Jean Haugland John Law and their co-workers, we have one of the best teams we have ever had to carry out the state committee's policies.
It is especially meaningful to me that this meeting is here in Cedar Rapids. My roots — both political and personal — are here. It is where both Ann and I spent our childhoods. This is where I began to work with you in the Iowa Democratic party and where we began together to share the successes that are worth recalling this morning.
I remember that before 1964 we had only two democrats in the Linn county court house. That year we elected six democrats to the court house and seven to the state house and I became the second district congressman. Mike Oxley and I were pictured together on his farm in my first campaign brochure.
I remember Pat Kane becoming county recorder in 1966 and Jim Hennessey's election to county treasurer in 1970 — posts those men fill ably to this day.
I remember our beginning here with a young professor named Dick Clark voter identification and registration efforts that put the Democratic Party across the political map of Iowa.
I remember calling him here in Cedar Rapids in 1971 when we all helped Cloyd Robinson win the special election to the State Senate.
I remember Democrats filling every court house seat in this county in 1972 — and we still hold them to this day.
I remember how grateful I felt for your support and indispensable assistance in my five consecutive elections to the House of Representatives and especially a November night in 1974 when I learned in my mother's house in Cedar Rapids that I had been elected to the United States Senate.
The increased confidence and trust reflected in the growth of the Democratic Party is a tribute to the public's respect for the quality of representation which we have provided. At a time when public frustration, fear and disillusionment are rampant there is a special responsibility at this moment to exhibit those strengths of character which have been responsible in substantial part for our political success the past 15 years.
One week ago today I spoke in Des Moines to the first of these three conferences on the future of the Democratic Party in Iowa. This is a subject in which all of us here today have a deep and shared common interest.
On that occasion I spoke out strongly against the proposal for a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention to achieve a balanced budget.
I also spoke out strongly against those legislators who voted for this proposition not on the basis of sincere convictions but because they felt it would aid them in their reelection.
I mentioned no individuals but went on to say that in my judgment such representation has no place in public life and public officials who tarnish the public trust in this manner should be removed from public office.
Newspaper stories reporting on this speech, while basically accurate in their story text of my remarks, featured headlines which read "Culver Calls for Purge of Democratic Legislators Who Voted for Constitutional Convention" and in another account said I "Ridiculed Area Legislators" who were then listed by name.
In subsequent stories it was also suggested that I was advocating defeat of party office holders on this single issue.
First, I wish to say that my observation as to the standard of integrity that should be applied to determine fitness to serve knows no partisan parameters but is applicable to Republican as well as Democratic public servants As a Democrat, however, I naturally would feel most uncomfortable if I were to encounter behavior short of this standard in our own party.
Moreover, I was not speaking of a single issue which should be grounds for electoral rejection but rather of a standard of integrity which if violated should constitute reproach and ultimately repudiation. I am talking in this context not of issues and causes but of integrity and character.
I am not interested in a litmus test of ideological purity for our party. While I consider myself a party loyalist it is in no small part becaust of the historical tolerance of diversity within our party.
Further, I will forever defend the right of dissent to a party position whenever that course is taken out of conscience and sincere conviction. This is not unfamiliar terrain for John Culver. I have been there before myself and I have every expectation to find myself there again.
This, however, is not inconsistent with the standard of integrity which I have described but rather an exercise of it because that standard represents a higher duty than mere partisan fidelity.
I recall a conversation I once had with Senator Russell Long who told me that one time early in his Senate career he was troubled by a very important vote he was soon to cast where the popular wishes of his constituents at that moment were vigorously opposed to a position which he knew in his own mind was very much in the national interest. He said that he consulted Senator Richard Russell for whom he had a great deal of respect and told him he thought he was going to vote with his people because otherwise it would hurt him in the next election. He said Senator Russell gave him some advice which led him to change his mind and later try to always follow — "Russell, once in a great while a man has to do the right thing around here, if it is in the national interest, even if it might cost him a few votes."
There should, of course, be tolerance for different views in public life but in my judgment there should not be tolerance for those who would sacrifice what they know to be right involving a fundamental matter affecting the constitution or the security of the nation in order to remain in office.
An acceptable definition of public service cannot be limited to the self-interest of reelection. Such conduct does not demonstrate respect for public opinion but contempt of it. Adlai Stevenson reminded us to never be reluctant to talk sense to the American people for as Harry Truman said, "The average American is a lot smarter than the average."
If an officeholder consistently votes against the wishes of a majority of his constituency he or she will not or indeed should not be returned to office. But those of us who are privileged to posses the public trust for however brief a period are properly expected to do more than simply mirror the momentary mood of public opinion on the great issues of our time. If our democratically elected officials are not willing to lead and take risks I really do not see why they are there or indeed that it makes any real difference who is.
Edmund Burke once said that, "a Representative should not pick up or lay down a great political system for the convenience of the hour . . . he is in parliament to support his opinion of the public good, and does not form his opinion in order to get into parliament, or to continue in it."
Last Monday I had a meeting with a number of legislators, some from here in our county about the misunderstandings that had arisen over the interpretation of my remarks at the Saturday convention. We had what I felt to be a frank and cordial exchange of views on this issue of a balanced budget and the subject of a constitutional amendment and a constitution convention. I had a valuable opportunity to learn of the depth of conviction and sincerity of concern with which this issue was viewed by many of those present, and I trust there were some who perhaps also profited from the feelings which I possess on this subject.
Since that time in Des Moines I have traveled throughout the State — and spent much of my time discussing the importance of this issue with the people of Iowa.
I have talked with people about this in: Ames, Nevada, Webster City, Fort Dodge, Sioux City, Cherokee, Storm Lake, Spencer, Council Bluffs, Harlan, Atlantic, Marshalltown, Mount Vernon, Iowa City, Davenport, Muscatine, Keokuk, Fort Madison and I am here today.
This moving dialogue has fortified me once again in my lifelong conviction that the real test of a politician's faith in and respect for the people is the willingness to have an honest exchange of views with them, confident that the resulting judgment will be in the best interest of our country.
I believe that today the most serious domestic issue that our nation faces is inflation. Its economic consequences ravage those who are most vulnerable. Its psychological consequences lead to fear and tend to bring out the worst instincts rather than the best in each of us as well as our society.
How then do we deal with it? It's best as in most things to try to understand it. Its causes are not solely or even largely attributable to the size of government or even the size of the deficit. A major cause is that in 1973 a barrel of oil cost $2 and now it costs $14 and this has resulted in a bomb-like explosion which has reverberated pervasively throughout our economy — impacting on virtually everything we make, buy or use. In addition, the wage/price spiral, consumer credit, protectionist trade policies, monopolistic price-fixing to name but a few — all play a role.
Thus to attack this complex issue successfully will require a careful medley of fiscal, monetary and governmental policies.
The size of the Federal budget is also a factor. When President Carter campaigned for the Presidency in 1976 the budget deficit from the Nixon-Ford administration was $66 billion dollars. Last year working with the Congress he reduced it to $40 billion and next year he proposes that it be under $30 billion, a reduction of more than one-half in just over two years.
I believe that the goal of a balanced budget is desirable and within our reach if we proceed responsibly. We are moving with the appropriate legislative and executive actions to accomplish this objective consistent with avoiding throwing our economy into a recessionary tailspin.
The President in making up his budget has estimated that our $2.2 trillion economy will move In the next fiscal year beginning October 1, 1979 at a rate of 2.2 percent growth, 6.2 percent unemployment and at a 7.4 percent rate of inflation. To hold unemployment at the 6.2 percent level which in and of itself means suffering for millions of Americans — it is necessary to maintain the 2.2 percent growth in the economy. If we were to attempt to balance the budget precipitously then, of course, unemployment would soar. It is important to note that for each 1 percent in unemployment it is estimated that it will cause a loss to the treasury of $20 billion in the loss of taxes paid in and income supplements paid out in unemployment compensation, welfare, and job retraining — thus creating an even greater deficit and human tragedy.
Simplistic approaches, such as a constitutional convention or a constitutional amendment, are overly rigid and dangerous remedies that on the one hand would trivialize the constitution and deny the Government the flexibility it needs to react quickly to changing conditions, and on the other hand create enormous uncertainties about the very structure of our Government and its ability to function.
Some States show a surplus at the present time simply because of a difference in accounting procedures from the procedures followed by the Federal Government, and because of enormous amounts of aid they are receiving from the Federal Government.
If the Federal Government were to adopt similar bookkeeping procedures, it would be in balance, too, but the balance would not be an accurate record of the true situation. Similarly, if we were to withdraw even half of the nearly $80 billion the Federal Government is now giving to the States, the Federal Government would be in balance overnight — but the economy would also be thrown into a tailspin, and the States would either face huge deficits themselves or have to raise their own taxes to make up the shortfall.
Our party has an obligation to deal honestly with this significant issue and chart a responsible course of action for the Nation.
Despite the warnings of the experts and the very real shifts we see in the electorate that change or diminish some of the traditional functions of the parties, I am strongly convinced that the party system has not outlived its usefulness.
Parties make it possible to have organized and coherent politics and thus an accountable democracy. They are also the most powerful political institution working for all those people who lack specialized political organizations of their own, and serve as the critical link between them and the policy-making process.
Emerson once said that mankind was divided between the party of conservatism and the party of innovation, between the past and the future, between memory and hope. There can be no doubt where the Democratic Party has stood in this great division.
We in the Democratic Party have a great foundation on which to build for the future. The party has served us and the country well. It deserves the loyalty of all elements of the coalitions that have made it great.
We have some rebuilding to do in our party to adjust to these changing times. And I think we should face the fact that we are not going to rebuild the party and its intended image with mechanical reorganization alone.
We must, of course, continue to honor our traditional commitment to help people of greatest need. We must also be innovative and tailor our party's issues and programs to the present realities of a constituency that has gone through profound changes since the days of the New Deal. A big percentage of the "have nots" of those days have become the "haves" of today. We must shape our programs to the working man who has seen his wages doubled, only to see that inflation and taxes have cruelly eroded his take-home pay. A sensitive and fair anti-inflation program can be a strong social program. A liberal has a more legitimate concern than most toward the elimination of waste and mismanagement in programs because those of us who care the most about a positive and humane role of Government have the most at stake in making these programs work.
Only 16 percent of Iowa's younger voters voted in the last election. This can only change if they see in the programs of our party something more attractive and inspiring than a choice between tweedle dum and tweedle dee. For a farmer, home owner, small business operator, factory worker or new voter, it is not enough to offer the warmed-over programs of earlier times when economic circumstances, demographics, and often human expectations werefar different from what they are today. We must have the will to eliminate what doesn't work — strengthen what does, and, above all, be imaginative in the design of particular programs and policies which are responsive to the needs of America today.
What is needed more than anything else is a spiritual reawakening, a reaffirmation of our sense of purpose and commitment to public service.
Then comes the tough, inescapable job of organization at all levels.
Are we, as a party, putting too much faith in the modern gimmicks of television commercials, polls and the formulae of professional political consultants? These are useful, perhaps indispensable, to a campaign these days. But without thorough, old-fashioned organizational work of the person-to-person, neighborhood variety, the victory bonfires will never be lighted.
In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 1960, John F. Kennedy posed the central question that faces us today:
"Can a nation organized such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction — but also a race for the mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds...?"
Do we possess a genuine confidence in the people working in turn of their continued public trust.
Do we in the Democratic Party have the nerve and the will to forge a new public philosophy that will nourish the spiritual hunger of our times and keep faith with our Democratic heritage?
If we didn't believe this, we wouldn't be here today.
Thank you — have a successful conference. What you accomplish here today may very well affect how others live not only in our State but throughout the world — not just today but for tomorrow.