Editing 79-03-A6 (section)

= Constitutional Amendment =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
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.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/13/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-284]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>