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

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...

The Reasons We Think America is On the Wrong Course

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday. He does a nice job at talk radio. But he was worked up because the CBS News Poll showed that 72% of Americans surveyed think the U.S. is on the wrong track. (When I went to CBS' site, it looks to me like the number is 69%, but that's an insignicant difference). Medved's view is that income for the poorest citizens are rising (recent government data), unemployment is low, stock market is high, no cold war, so why so pessimistic? Here are my answers: Several of our young men and women are being killed every day in a war that we are getting sick of. The deficit is some unimaginable, staggering number that my generation is imposing on my children. Social Security is bankrupt and both Congress and the Administration (both previous and current, and both Republican and Democratic) are unwilling to face the issue. There are virulent infectious agents in hospitals that are resistent to essentially all antibiotics, and the drug co...

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 Management My 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 somethi...