When Ulysses faced temptations that he knew might wreck his ship, he prudently had his crew tie him to the mast. So bound, he heard the sirens’ beautiful song, but he, his ship and its crew stayed off the rocks.
Unfortunately, our current batch of elected officials refuses even to recognize that there are rocks in the political ocean. That is one conclusion drawn from recent speeches by President Bush and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Both received positive reviews. In a Jacksonville, Fla., speech, Bush proposed a $500 increase in the maximum Pell grant for post-secondary education. The only negative reactions were that the proposed increase was too small and phased in too slowly.
In his State of the State speech given Tuesday in Rochester, Pawlenty called for a full four-year college in that growing city. Again, there was little criticism, though some noted limits imposed by ongoing budget problems.
Both proposals may be good for the economy. Increased grants to less-than-wealthy college students and a state college in one of Minnesota’s most dynamic areas could have a high payoff for society. There is nothing wrong with elected officials proposing useful initiatives.
We should evaluate such spending proposals, however, in the context of these leaders’ broader policy agendas. Here some stark incongruities arise.
The two men’s political programs are remarkably similar:
- Both ran on platforms in which tax cutting and spending restraint was a major plank.
- Both have taken pledges to not increase taxes during their terms.
- Both repeatedly argue that any budget deficits are a result of excessive spending rather than insufficient taxation.
- Both argue that failures to close budget deficits are due to inaction by the legislative branch rather than any contradictions in their own taxing and spending priorities.
- Both have proposed significant spending increases for popular programs.
- Neither has identified specific cuts in significant programs to fully close deficits.
- And, neither has ever proposed a realistic balanced budget.
There is nothing new in public officials calling for lower taxes and increased spending. Nor is blithe unconcern for deficits peculiar to Republicans. Indeed, it was a feature of Democratic administrations for a generation. But we have never had administrations — in Minnesota and at the national level — that were quite so willing to spend now and ask future generations to pay the bill later.
It may be time to consider how our constitutional structures affect deficit spending.
Many Americans do not realize that our “presidential-congressional” system of government is rare in the world or that we are the only wealthy nation with such a system.
Most other countries have parliamentary systems in which the party or bloc of parties that has a majority in parliament also has the executive responsibilities of governing. By design, a legislative majority of one party is never coupled with an executive dominated by another party.
Parliamentary systems have their own drawbacks, but under them responsibility for outcomes is clearer. No executive can claim to be for something and blame the legislative branch for blocking it.
In school, we learn that the “checks and balances” designed into our system are a virtue. They are, but they also encourage the fiscal irresponsibility occurring now at state and federal levels.
If we want to continue to benefit from the virtues of our system, we should act to limit its vices. By simple law or by constitutional amendment, we should tie elected officials to the mast of fiscal responsibility — just as Ulysses had his crew bind him to the mast.
This does not mean a federal balanced budget amendment nor does it mean that balancing the budget every fiscal year is important or even desirable.
It would require, however, that the president and governor prepare realistic budgets that would be balanced over a rolling average of four or five years. If they wish to call for more spending on Pell grants, hydrogen cars, commuter lines or new state colleges, they should specify how they would pay for these programs — either through increased taxes or by specifically cutting other existing programs.
A bipartisan panel of respected elder officials could set the standards for “realistic” budgeting and could certify that submitted budgets met or failed to meet such standards.
The legislative branch could still write its own taxing and spending bills subject to the executive’s traditional signature or veto. We might still have deficits — which indeed we should from time to time. If we averaged deficits over time, however, the responsibility for failure would be clearer.
© 2005 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.