Dead Men Ruling
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
See all Government We Deserve commentaries.
To subscribe, visit the newsletter page.
Dead Men Ruling
Let's get the facts straight. The nation's current fiscal mess stems from increasingly foolhardy
efforts by both major political parties to control an uncertain future long, long before it has
arrived. We've been in budget jams before, but not like this one. For perspective, what if during
William Howard Taft's presidency Congress had enacted laws that would predetermine all spending
from its day on and well into the 21st century?
As economic growth swelled government revenues, these legislators would continue to prescribe—from
six feet under—how to divvy the spoils. Their well-worn policy wheels would run over future elected
officials and voters, preventing them from embracing new priorities unless they simultaneously
rescinded past promises written into the law.
Unable to see their way out of this logjam, the next generation of Republicans and Democrats would
only make it worse—waddling back and forth between promising even more benefits relative to what
could be delivered and enacting low-cost but ineffectual policies to achieve symbolic results.
Each party would hope the other would be forced into damage control on the budget but would view
it as political suicide to take action itself.
Ludicrous scenario? Not really. Over decades, we have wound just such a straightjacket policy
around ourselves and then recently tried to tighten it for all posterity. Especially in retirement,
health, and taxation—budget areas where now-dead or retired members of Congress inscribed permanent
policies—annual decisionmaking and regular review have been choked off and future generations saddled
with the tab or forced to raise the resources to meet those past promises.
Make no mistake: this fiscal crisis is unique in our nation's history. And it's costly. Most important,
it robs voters of democratic choice. It treats future generations like adolescents who cannot be
trusted to do the right thing. It invites weak leadership since every step forward requires what
an outraged public may perceive as reneging on past promises. It also explains why neither political
party, when confronted with basic budget arithmetic, can define itself with a coherent slate of
domestic policies. For instance, the Democrats can't solve the problem merely by taxing the rich
a bit more, and the Republicans can't solve it by merely shifting some Social Security monies to
individual accounts.
Although we're currently stuck in this increasingly complex labyrinth where ever more is promised
to each person for an uncertain future, it's beginning to crumble. Only major systemic reform can
restore a normal democratic process. Each generation must regain the right to decide whether and
how government should spend more as economic growth adds to revenues, and whether it should return
some of the surplus as tax cuts. This major restructuring of budget, expenditure, and tax laws
and processes must bring back the budgetary wiggle room needed to fund new policies and programs.
Despite media stories to the contrary, the deficit is only a symptom of a system overburdened
by promises that together cannot be kept. Even if Congress were brave enough to aim for zero deficits
in the future, there would still be no future budgetary slack. Limiting current debt to what can
be covered by future assets is not the same as future money in the bank to spend on new priorities.
If the economy quintupled in size, as it did last century, and revenues also quintupled (or quadrupled
or sextupled, depending upon how political power evolved), yesterday's laws would still hamstring
us for decades and centuries to come.
As gloomy as this prospect is, fixing the budget is easy to achieve economically. Automatic growth
in government expenditure and tax subsidy programs for the most part needs to be curtailed and
made more discretionary—determined less today and more tomorrow, when future needs and priorities
are better known. Indeed, until very recently, no government has seen fit to obligate income so
far into the future. Thus, restoring democratic choice is almost entirely a political issue, requiring
of our leaders a decision to stay within today's budget and leave tomorrow's to our children and
theirs.
Note to Editors: Publication of this column is encouraged and permission is hereby granted, provided
that the author is properly cited. For information or comments, e-mail feedback@ui.urban.org.
The opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute, its
trustees, or its sponsors.
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:
Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.
Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
