ONE WEEK AFTER LAST November’s election, President Clinton met privately at the White House with Senate majority leader Trent Lott. Among the subjects discussed was the balanced budget amendment. Lott, pragmatic in his conservatism but zealously in favor of the amendment, insisted it has a good chance of passing in 1997. Clinton said he still opposes amending the Constitution to require balancing the budget every year. But his main concern, he told Lott, is an escape hatch if there’s an economic downturn or national emergency. Lott said a way might be found to accommodate the president. It was, Lott said later, “a very calm discussion,” and it made a strong impression on Clinton. When a reporter asked him later that morning if he opposes the amendment, the president sounded far less hostile than before. “I don’t believe we need it, but if we have it, it ought to be implemented in a way that actually works and gives the country what it needs to manage a recession,” he said.
Lott’s influence didn’t last long. The next day, Clinton gathered with his advisers, including thenchief of staff Leon Panetta and Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, both fervent foes of the amendment. “The president was under the impression the balanced budget amendment was pretty much a done deal,” a White House official said. “They let him know that with the additional Democrats in the House and some odd changes in the Senate there actually was a shot [at defeating it].” Clinton decided to go back to his previous position of strong opposition. “What he told us in the Oval Office,” according to Rubin, “was go back out there and make sure that the American public knows that [the president is] fully and energetically opposed to a balanced budget amendment.” Clinton’s advisers announced exactly that.
