ShareThis Page
George Will

George F. Will: Constitutional amendment needed to force balanced budgets

| Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
In this May 23, 2017, photo, copies of President Donald Trump's fiscal 2018 federal budget are seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. Trump’s budget promised deep spending cuts on domestic programs, rapid economic growth and a balanced federal ledger in a decade. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
In this May 23, 2017, photo, copies of President Donald Trump's fiscal 2018 federal budget are seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. Trump’s budget promised deep spending cuts on domestic programs, rapid economic growth and a balanced federal ledger in a decade. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

WASHINGTON

Today's political discord is less durable and dangerous than the consensus that unites the political class more than ideology divides it: 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 bipartisanship's paucity ignore the permanent, powerful bipartisan incentive to run enormous deficits, making big government cheaper for the moment. The burden of government borrowing part of its costs falls on future generations.

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, but no one should assume the tax changes will not hasten this. No one knows at what percentage the debt's deleterious effect on economic growth becomes severe; no sensible person doubts there is such a point.

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

The Constitution should be amended rarely and reluctantly. Today, however, a balanced-budget amendment is required.

For approximately 140 years, the Constitution's enumeration of powers, supposedly “few and defined” (Madison, Federalist 45), restrained the government. James Q. Wilson thought the collapse of his “legitimacy barrier” — did the Constitution empower the government to do this or that? — was complete in 1965 when Congress intruded into quintessentially state and local responsibility with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute president emeritus, notes that through the 1960s Great Society era, government's natural tendency to grow was inhibited by a 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. DeMuth notes that transfer payments to individuals are now about 70 percent of federal spending.

Critics warn Congress will evade a balanced-budget amendment by creative bookkeeping, stealthy spending through unfunded mandates on state governments and the private sector, declarations of spurious “emergencies” and other subterfuges. Such critics inadvertently make the amendment's case by assuming the political class is untrustworthy. And that the people's representatives unfortunately are representative of those who elect them.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

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.

click me