Share This Page

Shackled by 'dead men'

| Saturday, Aug. 2, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

In theory, the American people's elected representatives decide every so often how much to tax the public and how to allocate the revenue among various priorities, both short term and long term.

In practice, however, Congress and the president have almost no such fiscal latitude. The vast majority of anticipated tax proceeds, roughly 80 percent currently, already are committed to programs — such as Social Security and Medicare and in interest on the national debt — before the House and Senate convene each January.

By 2023, the figure will approach 100 percent if current trends continue. Consequently, the federal government would have to borrow its entire discretionary budget, for things such as disaster relief, infrastructure and education.

This near-total loss of “fiscal freedom” is the theme of “Dead Men Ruling,” a short, superb new book by C. Eugene Steuerle, from which the above statistics derive.

The title nicely expresses the fact that today's lawmakers are tightly constrained by the accumulated, and seemingly unalterable, decisions of their predecessors. Government is not just out of their control; it's beyond their control.

Steuerle persuasively argues that the nation's budget challenge is to restore a long-term balance between spending and revenue so that the federal government can invest in new priorities without further indebting an already dangerously indebted country.

Declining fiscal freedom is politically toxic, too. The two parties define themselves by past achievements — New Deal and Great Society programs for Democrats, low tax rates (and various tax breaks) for Republicans — and then fight uncompromisingly to perpetuate them.

Steuerle's book is an effective riposte to those who would argue that fiscal concerns are overblown in light of recent progress against the deficit or that “deficit hawks” are just rationalizing mean-spirited “austerity” to punish the poor and elderly.

A government that lives within its means would be freer to stimulate the economy during recessions or to devote more resources to the needs of poor children, as opposed to maintaining the current consumption of older middle- and upper-middle-class voters, which is the unstated but actual purpose of the status quo.

At least Steuerle, unlike other budget pundits, is upbeat about the challenge, emphasizing the opportunities for policy innovation and reinvigorated governance that would result from the restoration of “fiscal freedom.”

As the intellectually sterile election campaigns currently underway show, however, few politicians, if any, have figured out how to express Steuerle's combination of realism and optimism and sell it to voters. The future might belong to the one who finally does.

Charles Lane is a Washington Post columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.