Few topics have received more attention in the media lately than the balanced-budget amendment being pushed by right-wing elements.  It's sponsors understandably want the amendment passed before the gory details are filled in for all to see.  Essentially it's little more than an odd variation on signing a blank check.  Millions of Americans are being asked to accede to reductions in expenditures in areas and in projects that could very well adversely affect their own livelihoods.  Millions of people support the idea under the mistaken impression that whatever suffering is involved will descend elsewhere.  How little do they comprehend the process by which capitalism really operates.  If I were an elected opponent of this whole idea I'd turn to the TV cameras during one of my media appearances and say, "The American people should realize that the selling of the balanced-budget amendment by the Republican Party is even more sinister than the selling of a used car by Dependable Dan.  At least Dan allows you to examine the vehicle, but with Republicans selling their bogus buggy the response is quite different.  When you ask them for permission to look under the hood, they say no.  When you ask to look in the trunk, again your request is denied.  When you say, 'Well can I look underneath and check for rust and leaks,' again the response is negative.  Only whey you ask to at least look inside and examine the interior is permission granted.  Unfortunately, you quickly discover that the vehicle has heavily tinted windows like those found on the white, stretch limousines of the wealthy.  Just as capitalists inside the car can view the masses on the outside, but not vice versa, so those inside the economic vehicle can examine the real contents of what's being sold, but not vice versa.

     Passage of the balanced-budget amendment would not only bring tremendous hardship to millions of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, but cause monumental disruption to the economy in general.  It's the same kind of crack-pot idea the Reagan crowd was throwing around so loosely in the late 1970's and upon which Rotten Ronnie was elected in 1980.  When he actually tried to implement his brainchild by bringing the budget into equilibrium via drastic reductions in expenditures, the unemployment percentage figure rapidly soared into double digits and Reagan quickly became one of the most hated presidents in modern times.  That lasted only a few months, however, because Reagan's advisors and pollsters soon gave him the political "facts of life."  In no uncertain terms he was told that he and his party were headed toward electoral disaster in the off-year election of 1982 and the presidential election of 1984, unless things changed drastically.  Consequently, one of the greatest political transformations in modern times suddenly occurred.  Reagan and his hinchmen reversed course 180 degrees and became the greatest governmental spenders ever seen.  The party of pinching-pennies and fiscal responsibility, the party of miserliness and thrift, the party that counted paper clips, began spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave at New Year's.  The party of fiscal integrity began dispensing borrowed funds like they had a pipeline to the mint.
     The national debt went through the roof, tripling in less than a decade, and Reagan became one of the most liked presidents in United States history.  Of course, his supporters neglect to mention the fact that he created his popularity with other people's money.  He borrowed money he didn't have, subjected his descendants to interest payments they didn't incur, bought millions of items that weren't needed, and left without paying back a dime.  I'd be pretty popular too if I went down the streets of Columbus, Ohio and passed out $100 bills to everyone I saw with money I had just borrowed (from the rich of course), especially if everyone could expect another $100 next year.  Yes, I'd be in great demand.  People would be lining up to vote for me, too.  After all, there is more than one way to buy an election.  It's much easier and far more saleable, even fashionable, when you don't have to beg, steal, diminish your own reserves, or expropriate the wealth of others through taxes.
     If the democrats had had any sense they would have done it earlier, especially in the Carter years when interest rates were soaring.  After all, they have always been labeled the big spenders.  So they might as well have lived up to the reputation and reaped the political benefits.  Instead, the republicans beat them to the punch and the Clinton gang is now trying to put through a politically suicidal program of paying off accumulated bills through raising taxes, reducing borrowing, and even spending less.  A scheme of this kind may look good on the accounting sheets, but it's nothing more than a blueprint for political disaster.  Reagan learned that, and now Clinton is learning it anew, as the recent election vividly demonstrated.  A major difference between Reagan and Clinton, however, is that the former's hatred of socialism and fear of a democrat reascendancy in 1982 and 1984 was so intense, so powerful, so all-consuming, that in order to stay in power he was willing to sacrifice one of his most cherished beliefs and directly repudiate a campaign promise.  At that point David Stockman correctly referred to the failure of the Reagan Revolution.
     The last 14 years have clearly shown that the capitalist system has no mechanism for rewarding responsible governmental spending.  If you try to meet your obligations, you're dead meat in the next election.  If you are concerned about the financial status of future generations, then don't enter politics with a capitalist perspective, because those measures necessary to save our descendants from agony tomorrow spell pain for the populace of today.  One of the greatest contradictions in the capitalist system is that by its very nature generational interests are diametrically opposed.  In like manner, if you save the trees, waters, wildlife, and minerals for those yet to come, you sacrifice jobs and profits for those already here.  Their interests clash and all efforts to resolve this within an unplanned, decentralized, every-man-for-himself, do-your-own-thing, money-rules-the-road system are doomed.  That's a major reason why it's imperative that capitalism not only be abolished but that this be accomplished as soon as possible.  Marxists must not only eradicate capitalism but realize they are now operating under the added burden of a deadline.  The dinosaurs lived on this planet approximately 200,000,000 years before environmental changes brought about their extinction.  Man has been here only 1,000,000 years and considering the ever accelerating rate at which the environment is being destroyed and rendered poisonous there is little chance of humanity surviving beyond another 2000 years, let alone 200,000,000.  Without the kind of environmental planning and allocation of resources that only socialism can provide, it's no longer a case of if, but when.