Whether or not the law is ruledunconstitutional, Shattuck said Harvard would beinvolved in intensive lobbying efforts on CapitolHill this spring to avoid deep education cuts.

"Congress won't let the budget cuts programdie," said Feldstein. "They will work out a way totransfer the authority to the Congressional BudgetOffice."

"The Congress will modify Gramm-Rudman to putit into a form that passes. The cuts will be aboutthe same," Feldstein said.

Marglin said that the Congress would have doneaway with Gramm-Rudman soon, because it wouldn'tbe able to withstand the political pressureagainst deep budget cuts. The court's ruling was"a neat, surgical way. The same result could havebeen achieved in a more underhanded way," he said.

Marginal cuts will still take place, accordingto Marglin, but they will not be as drastic asthose outlined by Gramm-Rudman.

Political Burden

Marglin said that Congressional politickingwill play a greater role in the budget cuts issueas a result of the court's ruling. "Senators likedGramm-Rudman because they did not want to takeresponsibility for cuts in aid to the poor. Theruling forces them to make choices," he said.

Professor of Law Richard D. Parker said thatthe court decision "puts the thing back in the lapof Congress," but the ruling was "a big mistake."

The automatic budget cutting mechanism wouldgreatly reduce battling among interest groups,said Parker. "The virtue of Gramm-Rudman is thatit would force difficult decisions to the front ofthe agenda. A lot of people have no trust inCongress to discipline itself," he said