Skip to main content

Should Conservatives Support a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Should conservatives support a balanced budget amendment?


I don't think so. To understand why , let's review some history.

Beginning with the Eisenhower era, budget compromises were always hammered out. Defense suffered some in that, but there were plenty of strong defense, conservative Democrats that kept things reasonable. With the coming of Johnson's Great Society, however, dramatic shifts began. Strong defense democrats like John Stennis, Scoop Jackson, Mike Mansfield and Jack Kennedy, retired, passed away or were pushed aside, as the Viet Nam war turned the Democratic Party pacifist.

The compromises made to balance the annual budget among various government priorities moved strongly away from defense to a growing variety of social programs.

This continued under Nixon and Carter. The CIA was almost destroyed by Senator Church, while the overall defense budget was dismantled, as Republicans made cuts to keep the budget balanced.

However, a new theory emerged as Regan was elected. I attribute it to Irving Kristol (late father of conservative writer Bill Kristol). Mr. Kristol recommended that Republicans stop yielding and cutting defense, but rather advance all the defense programs they deemed appropriate and thereby force Democrats to retreat on new or expanded social programs. Regan expanded military spending dramatically, and with the U.S. far superior market-based economy, placed the USSR in an unmanageable position: they simply couldn't match the U.S. spending. The downside, however, was that Dem's didn't compromise at all on social programs - they continued to vote them through. So spending restraint was abandoned by both sides. Regan's Director of Office of Management and Budget - David Stockman - thought he had a deal with the Dem's. However, he got rolled like a drunk college boy on Saturday night in Nuevo Laredo. The result, if one remembers, was Stockman's lament: deficits as far as the eye can see.

So now it is 2011, and lots of conservatives think that a balanced budget is their last hope. A forced diet for fat guys who can't seem to grasp the concepts of eat less and exercise more. It almost sounds good.

But what would have happened a scant 18 months ago when the Dem's controlled both houses and the White House, if a balanced budget would have been required? Would one conclude that they would have slashed social programs to preserve defense and balance the budget? I think not.

Unless you believe that Conservatives will control at least one wing of government in perpetuity, supporting a balanced budget amendment seems very risky to me.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Cover of The Future of ManagementMy list of must-read business writers continues to expand.Gary Hamel, however, author of What Matters Now, with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, has been on the list for quite some time.Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management, Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run.

Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with something that reflects an educat…

Book Review- Stretch by Scott Sonenshein

Have you ever watched, or been involved in, a business failure, where, despite the best efforts of hardworking people, the business doesn’t survive? Scott Sonenshein lived through it, as he describes in the Introduction to his engrossing book Stretch.  (In some books, the reader can skip the intro- not this one; the introduction is a must-read part of the book.) He was hired by start-up Vividence in Silicon Valley at the very apex of the tech boom.  Despite prestige VC backers, top-tier hires and $50 million, Vividence didn’t make it. As his career continued, that experience led to an interest in why some well-funded operations don’t succeed, while other, more resource constrained, do. Peter Senge wrote about reinforcing cycles as part of his book The Fifth Discipline, which I consider one of the finest business books ever penned. In it, Senge describes the downward cycle that some companies fall into, and why it is so difficult to reverse. Sonenshein explores those cycles from diffe…

Tax Inversions

A savvy businessman once told me “it’s important to know what problem you are trying to solve”.
Let’s ignore for the moment whether or not Treasury or the IRS had the power to change the rules on so-called tax inversions without Congressional action. (The power they said they didn’t have only a few months ago.)
Rather, let’s focus on what problem we are trying to solve. That is, why is the greatest country on earth chasing companies away? Shouldn’t the U.S. be the place that companies want to locate their headquarters?
Imagine this: the U.S. legal structure and tax regime was so attractive that Mercedes, Toyota, Astra Zeneca, Samsung, Total, Singapore Air, Banco Santander, Petrobras, Fujitsu, Nokia, SAP, Audi, Tata Group, Lenovo, Pirelli, Deutsche Bank, Honda, LG, Hyundai, Roche, Credit Suisse, Four Seasons, Siemens, Phillips, Bridgestone, Anglo-America, DeBeers, Volkswagen, Canon,  L’OrĂ©al, Swatch, Armani, LVMH, Toshiba, H&M, Mahindra, Aldi, Kubota, Onex, Ducati, Pemex, Saudi-Ara…