European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - November 18, 1993, Darmstadt, Hesse Thursday november 18, 1993 commentary the stars and stripes Page 17 balanced budget amendment a recipe far Gravy in the american system of govern ment it is famously difficult to get any thing framers of the Constitution built in checks and balances because they believed wisely that efficiency was less important than preventing abuse of Power. But their design has become encrusted with fur ther frustrating devices. To get any significant legis Anthony Lewis Latton passed a president has to make private deals with Mem Ben of Congress to give them projects or appointments they want. The process has become a series of Mutual vetoes and extractions. To change any vested privilege sugar Protection cheap grazing on Federal land whatever has become virtually impossible. Now Congress is moving to give special interests and minority factions even greater influence in the process. That Isth real meaning of the proposal known As the constitutional amendment to re quire a balanced budget. The name of the proposal is a hypocritical cover for what would really happen i the amendment became part of the Constitution. Balancing the budget would be just As political and just As painful As it Isnow. But minorities would have much More Power to Feather their own nests. The proposed amendment says that Congress must pass a balanced Bud get unless 60 percent of the members of each House suspend that Rule. It takes no Genius to realize what the result would be. Presidents and congressional leaders would make deals to get that 60 percent. And individual members would have More leverage. I d love to help you or. President the congressman would say. But i jus can t vote with you on the budget Bill unless it includes xxx in my that sort of thing goes on All the time now. Members who Are loud in denouncing the deficit Are among the most ruthless in demanding Gravy for them selves and their constituents. But with 40 percent taking Over what is now the majority s Power they could be even More Brazen. the whole difficulty in ending budget deficits since president Reagan spent us into grotesque debt is that people do not want to give up their own benefits. The60 percent Rule will not change that aspect of human nature. It will just ensure that every budget is packed with titbits traded for votes. Sen. Paul Simon d-i1i., is the principal Senate sponsor of the proposal. In a fact Sheet he asked what if Congress Sim ply does t balance the budget How i this amendment enforced in answer he said in part that members of Congress or the attorney general might be Able to sue and the final arbiter will be As in All constitutional matters the supreme now there is a wonderful Prospect. Congress phonics up the figures and passes a budget that really has a deficit. Then the supreme court no doubt after years of Legal proceedings is supposed to Tell us what the True figures arc. Or More Likely it would Wash its hands of a matters ill suited to judicial Resolution and put the Issue Back at Square one. What a recipe for Buck passing frustration and chaos in government. Many conservatives favor the amendment. But Robert h. Bork the rejected supreme court nominee who is a conservative hero says it seems Likely to be either in effective or damaging and perhaps a proposal proposal to add such a quack remedy to the profound cities of our Constitution might seem to have Little Chance of adoption. Not so. Last year the amendment came close to the needed two thirds majority in both houses an this year the effect of pro Tim and All the talk about the budget deficit have in creased its chances. Of 14 new senators elected in 1992, 11 Are supporting the amendment. The could tip the Senate Over the two thirds Mark. The Senate was originally scheduled to debate the amendment before thanks giving. Now the Issue has been put off until february but no one should think that the postponement will weaken the proponents. To the contrary the Prospect of facing voters in 1994 could scare More members into saying yes. In a secret ballot my guess is that the proposal would lose soundly in both houses. But Many members that they have to Bow to the sacred cow of a balanced budget however hypocritical the particular idea May be. It is up to us the citizens to Tell them that we do not want a new device to hobble our already limping institutions. C the i cml rights issues override old fashioned civility he is White male and Middle aged and not the sort of Man who describes that As his Handicap. He will not Tell you that he belongs to the last group in America that can be discriminated against without fear. Indeed he Calls himself a Friend of feminists having been raised that Way by his motherland wife and his daughter. Nevertheless there is something bothering him this morning. The supreme court quickly and unanimously made it easier for women to prove sexual harassment in the workplace. The Law protects women in Justice Sandra Day o Connor s words before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous what this Man wants to talk about now is civil rights. Or maybe about wants to Tell me that during the past year when things have been Tough and he s gone from one Job Tonone to another. He too has been Well victimized is not too Strong a word. From time to time he s been humiliated demeaned dehumanized by one or another Superior. In Short he s been harassed. He s been subject to the sort of environment which in o Connor s description would reasonably be perceived and is perceived As hostile or he can match any Story told to the Ellen Goodman supreme court in this Case by Teresa Harris with one of his own but because it was t gender based harassment or racially based or age based or disability based harassment because it was simply employee based harassment and individual abuse there was nothing he could do about it. The Boss might have been obnoxious but it was an equal Opportunity obnoxious Ness. This Middle aged White Man might have been outraged butt was merely As a human being. What he asks me is this Why is it worse to be sexually harassed than personally harassed Why does the Law protect some workers from some abuse and not All workers from All abuse what about him 1 could give this Man the simple Legal answer and i do. The Laws were passed to Deal with discrimination not labor relations. The Point was to level the playing Field not to raise the Quality of life on the shop floor. The courts ask whether men and women Whites and Blacks Young and old Are being treated equally not whether they Are being treated Well. I could Tell this Man and i do that the Laws come from a society that s been forced to pay attention to civil rights. But i cannot Tell him Why there is less Atten Tion paid to rights and civility. I listen sometimes to the sounds of the workplace. The Way the dispatcher talks to the cabdriver the Way the restaurant manager talks to the waiter the Way the Foreman talks to the clerk. It in t always easy on the ear. There is no right to retreated respectfully. No Law against being humiliated. There is no Equality of politeness Between Boss and bossed. Talking to this Man it strikes me that the impatience or even the anger that some men feel at women s complaints of harassment May not be hostility to women s rights. It May be because they Are fellow sufferers. These men do not feel privileged. Indeed they too arc Many men see women getting a Day in court but they too have their bad Bosses at work. They have stories to Tell and nobody to listen. Maybe the impatience is greater now when men White and Middle aged White and Young feel Inse cure themselves. When unions Are weaker and work pressure is greater. And especially when the Overall civility Index is lower. Civil rights protect individuals. Civility protects the Community. Individuals plead their own Case in the courts. Who pleads the Case for Community i always believed that women want change for both themselves and for society. We want Equality wit men in the world but we also want to improve that world. Including the world of work. So today women Are attacking an abusive working environment a sexually hostile workplace. At Long last we Are making a Strong progressive Case for civil rights. But As this Man reminds me the rest of the work world Waits to be civilized. C the Boston Globe
