A balanced-budget amendment is needed

Print Article

WASHINGTON - Today's political discord is less durable and dangerous than a consensus, one that unites the political class more than ideology divides it. The consensus is that, year in and year out, in good times and bad, Americans should be given substantially more government goods and services than they should be asked to pay for. Lamentations about the paucity of bipartisanship ignore the permanent, powerful incentive, which both parties share and indulge, to run enormous deficits, thereby making big government cheaper, for the moment. Government borrows part of its costs; the borrowing's burden falls on future generations. This is a form of expropriation - taxation without representation of the unborn.

The federal debt held by the public was 39 percent of GDP 10 years ago; it is 75 percent today. Before last month's tax changes, the debt was projected to reach 91 percent in 10 years. No one knows if the tax changes will hasten this; no one should assume that they will not. No one knows at what percentage the debt's deleterious effect on economic growth becomes severe; no sensible person doubts that there is such a point.

WE WILL discover that point the hard way, unless Congress promptly sends to the states for prompt ratification a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets. The amendment proposed by Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University's business school, and Tim Kane, economist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, would limit each year's total spending to the median annual revenue of the previous seven years, allowing temporary deficits to be authorized in emergencies by congressional supermajorities.

Because reverence for the Constitution is imperiled by tinkering with it, and because the supply of ideas for improving Madison's document always exceed society's supply of Madisonian wisdom, the document should be amended rarely and reluctantly. Today, however, a balanced-budget amendment is required to counter two developments: the abandonment of the original understanding of the Constitution, and the death of the political morality that expressed that understanding.

FOR approximately 140 years, the government was restrained by the Constitution's enumeration of its powers, which supposedly were "few and defined" (Madison, Federalist 45). Before Congress acted it considered what James Q. Wilson called the "legitimacy barrier": Did the Constitution empower the government to do this or that? As late as the 1950s, Congress at least feigned fealty to constitutional limits: When it wanted to build the interstate highway system and subsidize college students it referred, if perfunctorily, to the enumerated responsibility for defense in naming the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (1956) and the National Defense Education Act (1958). Wilson thought the legitimacy barrier's collapse was complete in 1965 when Congress intruded into the quintessentially state and local responsibility with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Democracy generally, and especially legislative bargaining, is inherently additive: Majorities are assembled by attracting components with particularized benefits. Christopher DeMuth, president emeritus of the American Enterprise Institute, notes that from the Founding to the 1930s-1960s New Deal-Great Society era, this natural tendency of government to grow was inhibited by the bipartisan political ethic: Deficits were neither prudent nor seemly except when "borrowing was limited to wars, other emergencies, and investments such as territorial expansion and transportation; and incurred debts were paid down diligently."

THIS tradition of borrowing for the future dissipated as government began routinely borrowing from the future in order to finance current consumption of government goods and services. DeMuth argues that a balanced-budget amendment is required because of the transformation of government from a provider of public goods (defense, infrastructure) to a provider of benefits (money and services) directly to individuals:

Transfer payments are now about 70 percent of federal spending.

A constitutional amendment imposing congressional term limits would not obviate, but would lessen, the need for a balanced-budget amendment by diminishing the incentive to think of the next election rather than the next generation. Unfortunately, the careerism that makes term limits advisable means that Congress will also never vote for this version of Warren Buffett's instant fix for deficits: When, absent a war or other emergency, the budget is not balanced, all congressional incumbents are ineligible for re-election.

(Write to George Will at georgewill@washpost.com)

(c) Washington Post

Print Article

Read More Columnists

School safety bill renews state gun debate

March 12, 2018 at 4:00 pm | THE latest statewide poll numbers on gun ownership, and tougher gun laws, provide a fascinating backdrop to the coming Capitol debate over school safety. According to the new Marquette Law School Po...


Read More

GOP senators judge Walker, Assembly deals

March 05, 2018 at 4:00 pm | NO CAPITOL institution has undergone more change in recent years than the state Senate that will soon decide the fate of Republican Gov. Scott Walker's re-election priorities. When the new Senate co...


Read More

Capitol Report Dispute ends as administrator steps down

March 05, 2018 at 4:00 pm | The drama at the state Elections Commission is coming to at least a partial close. Mike Haas, who came under fire from Senate Republicans, will be easing out of his job as the top administrator at t...


Read More

Capitol Report Tax overhaul could curb state exemptions

March 02, 2018 at 4:00 pm | Rep. John Macco, chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, suggests a comprehensive tax overhaul could include cutting $2.5 billion worth of state exemptions. "I think there's several anom...


Read More

Contact Us

(608) 365-8811
149 State Street
Beloit, WI 53511

©2018 Beloit Daily News Terms of Use Privacy Policy