Get FREE NRO Newsletters
Log In | Register
Follow Us Everywhere
November 15 Issue
Subscribe to NR
Renew
Page Tools
TEXT RESIZE
RSS Feed
Print Version
NRO Links
Subscribe to NR
Subscribe to National Review magazine today and save 70 percent off the newsstand price!
Conservative Grads
Learn more about the NR Collegiate Giving Clubs, a special service designed for readers who donate to universities and want to maximize the impact of their giving.
Get NRO Newsletters
Sign up for free NRO Newsletters, including Morning Jolt by Jim Geraghty and The Goldberg File by Jonah Goldberg.
MOST-READ CONTENT
Archive | Latest | Log In
November 11, 2010 12:00 A.M.
The voters just spoke. They think they want no more gargantuan deficits, massive public spending, and exponential growth in government â?? or the specter of higher taxes to pay for all of it. No wonder: We are on pace to soon owe 100 percent of our annual gross domestic product in national debt, while compiling the largest annual peacetime deficits in our history.
So cutting the borrowing and spending is inevitable if America is to avoid a Greece-like implosion. But as the blood sport begins, we should remember the strange politics that govern the process.
First, no one ever reduces government in good times, when we would be far better able to limit spending, and the public needs less assistance. Cutting happens only after the economy falters and the money runs out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That fact always leads to a vicious cycle: When the people believe they need public assistance the most, an indebted government is least able to provide it. Recipients have become accustomed to the steady additions in federal money they receive and will insist that they can survive only with continual increases, never by reducing their own expenditures.Second, raising taxes has limits, as we see from the California meltdown. There, a 10 percent state income tax on upper incomes and a sales tax of nearly 10 percent did not result in balanced budgets, but instead sent many high earners and businesses out of state, and made the ones that stayed stop hiring and buying equipment. Employers will prefer to shut down or hide rather than take risks while they feed the ever-growing state beast.
Third, Democrats are always politically in a far better position than Republicans to cut federal spending. As the signature party of redistributive change, they are less vulnerable to charges of being needlessly cruel â?? in the same ironic way that conservatives give aberrant big-spending Republicans a pass, as if their profligacy were somehow out of character.
That paradox may explain why government spending as a percentage of GDP actually shrank under Bill Clinton, who achieved budgetary surpluses in three of his eight years as president â?? but deficits and government spending rose dramatically under George W. Bush. Yet Clinton was rarely derided by liberals as hard-hearted for his fiscal discipline or praised by conservatives for his parsimony. Nor was Bush often lauded as caring by the Left for his government generosity, or chastised much by the Right for his profligacy.
Fourth, politicians promise the easy cutting of generic â??waste and fraud,â? â??foreign aid,â? or â??unnecessary wars.â? The problem, however, is that waste, wars, and aid probably account for less than 5 percent of the federal budget this year. In contrast, more than 60 percent of yearly spending is devoted to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense expenditures not directly related to war. Budgetary discipline is impossible without a no-holds-barred discussion of demography, increased longevity, and the national-security perils of unsustainable national debt.
Fifth, self-interest governs the entire debate. Roughly half the public pays no income tax. And roughly half of Americans receive all of their income or a large part of it from the federal government. Beneficiaries vote for higher taxes on others and still more benefits for themselves. Benefactors obviously prefer fewer payouts for others and lower taxes on themselves.
And political affiliation is not always a clear guide. Despite public rhetoric, many conservatives will privately object to the cutting of any federal benefits they receive, while high-earning liberals might quietly resent having to pay increased taxes to be spent on others.
Sixth, there is always a â??you go firstâ? element to budget-cutting. The party that imposes discipline is demagogued, even as its opportunistic opposition usually claims credit for the improved economy that follows from the responsible policies of others.
What can the public do? Americans should laud any politician of either party who has the courage to work for balanced budgets, and they should hold accountable any who do not. Budget-cutting may be depressing, but it is not as depressing as bankruptcy (ask the French and the Greeks). Do not forget that just as households become upbeat when mortgages and credit cards are paid off, so too will Americans collectively recover their optimism and sense of pride when we are admired abroad for our fiscal sobriety rather than ridiculed for our spending addiction.
And look at it this way: In terms of our collective health and national security, a budget surplus is probably worth more than an expanded federal health-care entitlement, another Social Security cost-of-living increase, or a new aircraft carrier.
â?? Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Log In to Post a Comment
COMMENTS 2
EXPAND
$.getJSON('http://nr-media-01.nationalreview.com/outloudopinion/articles/253014/politics-budget-cutting-victor-davis-hanson?jsoncallback=?', function(data){ if (data.audio) { $("#outloudopinion").html('Listen to the Audio Version
').show(); AudioPlayer.embed("outloudaudio", { soundFile: data.audio, titles: "The Politics of Budget-Cutting" }); } });Ed Lazear
11/11/10 11:53
Link
Report Abuse
VDH gives Bill Clinton too much credit by writing that he "achieved budgetary surpluses in three of his eight years." Following is a table of Total Public Debt Outstanding, courtesy of www.treasurydirect.gov: 3/30/2001 5,774 Bil 3/31/2000 5,773 Bil 3/31/1999 5,652 Bil 3/31/1998 5,542 Bil 3/31/1997 5,381 Bil Up every year. If there truly were surpluses, wouldn't the debt have gone down at least one year?
RTut
11/11/10 11:48
Link
Report Abuse
I agree, mostly, with the article, but, Clinton Did not do diddle to balance any budget. A willing Republican congress drug him by the ear down that path. All Clinton had to do was begrudgingly sign the bills and coast through another election. Maybe this is a replay?
> NRO Author Directory
//'); //]]> //'); //]]> a.adLink_a:hover {background-color: ; text-decoration: underline; } a.adLink1_a:hover {background-color: ; text-decoration: underline; text-align:center} a.adTitle_a:hover {background-color: ; text-decoration: underline; } a.adTitle1_a:hover {background-color: ; text-decoration: underline; text-align:center} a.adLink_a {text-decoration: none } .single_center {text-align: center} a.adTitle_a {text-decoration: none } a.adLink1_a {text-decoration: none; text-align:center} a.adTitle1_a {text-decoration: none; text-align:center} .header {background:#eee;padding:4px; font-size:15px; font-weight:bold} .ad {width: 300px; height: 600px;} .ad1 {width: 300px; height: 600px;} .adText {color:000000;text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal;} .adText1 {color:000000;text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-align:center} .adLink {overflow: hidden; color:00000;text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal;} .adLink1 {color:00000; text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-align:center} .abg {color:000000;text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal;} .adTitle {color:16507E;text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal;} .adTitle1 {color:16507E;text-decoration:none; font-family: Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-align:center} .ad_box1 {border-style:solid;border-width:1;px; border-color:FFFFFF; background-color: e7edf5;height:600px;width:300px;margin-left:0px; opacity: 1; background-image: url(); background: nottransparent; } .ad_box2 {border-style:solid;border-width:1;px; border-color:FFFFFF; background-color: e7edf5;height:600px;width:300px;margin-left:0px; opacity: 1; background-image: url(); background: nottransparent; } var google_adnum = 0; function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) { var ad_unit = ''; if (google_ads.length == 0) { return; } if (google_ads[0].type == "flash") { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google' + ' ' + '' + '' + ''; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "image") { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google '; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "html") { ad_unit += google_ads[0].snippet; } else { if (google_ads.length == 1) { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google' + google_ads[0].line1 + '' + google_ads[0].line2 + '' + google_ads[0].line3 + ' ' + google_ads[0].visible_url + ''; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google'; for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) { ad_unit += '' + google_ads[i].line1 + '' + google_ads[i].line2 + ' ' + google_ads[i].line3 + '' + google_ads[i].visible_url + ''; } ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } google_ad_client = "ca-pub-7596656896688386"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '6'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "off"; google_image_size = '300x250'; google_skip = '6'; google_ad_region = 'test'; className = 'blog_text'; max_width = 400; if (document.getElementsByClassName) { classes = document.getElementsByClassName(className); } else { classes = Array(); divs = document.getElementsByTagName('div'); for(i = 0; i < divs.length; i++) { if (divs[i].className == className) { classes.push(divs[i]); } } } if (classes.length) { for (k = 0; k < classes.length; k++) { div = classes[k]; var imgs = div.getElementsByTagName("img"); for (var i in imgs) { img = imgs[i]; if (img.width < max_width || !img.src) { continue; } ratio = (img.height/img.width); img.width = max_width; img.height = Math.round((max_width * ratio)); } var objects = div.getElementsByTagName("object"); for (var i in objects) { object = objects[i]; if (object.width < max_width) { continue; } ratio = (object.height/object.width); object.width = max_width; object.height = Math.round((max_width * ratio)); } var embeds = div.getElementsByTagName("embed"); for (var i in embeds) { embed = embeds[i]; if (embed.width < max_width || !embed.src) { continue; } ratio = (embed.height/embed.width); embed.width = max_width; embed.height = Math.round((max_width * ratio)); } } } flowplayer("div.player", { src: "http://global.nationalreview.com/swf/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.2.swf", wmode: "transparent" }, { key: '#$7d41c22f17c720e72d8', canvas: { backgroundColor: '#000000', backgroundGradient: 'none' }, clip: { onStart: function() { pageTracker._trackPageview(this.getClip().url); pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Play", this.getClip().url); }, onResume: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Resume", this.getClip().url, parseInt(this.getTime())); }, onPause: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Pause", this.getClip().url, parseInt(this.getTime())); }, onStop: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Stop", this.getClip().url, parseInt(this.getTime())); }, onFinish: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Finish", this.getClip().url); }, scaling: 'fit' }, plugins: { audio: { url: 'flowplayer.audio-3.2.0.swf' }, controls: { url: "flowplayer.controls-air-3.2.1.swf", timeColor: "#ffffff", borderRadius: "0px", bufferGradient: "none", slowForward: true, backgroundColor: "rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6)", volumeSliderGradient: "none", slowBackward: false, progressGradient: "medium", time: true, height: 22, volumeColor: "rgba(120, 120, 120, 1)", tooltips: { marginBottom: 5, volume: true, scrubber: true, buttons: false }, opacity: 1, fastBackward: false, volumeSliderColor: "rgba(217, 210, 217, 1)", border: "0px", bufferColor: "rgba(150, 150, 150, 1)", buttonColor: "rgba(87, 87, 87, 50)", mute: true, autoHide: { enabled: true, hideDelay: 1500, hideStyle: "fade", mouseOutDelay: 1500, hideDuration: 500, fullscreenOnly: false }, backgroundGradient: [0.5,0.2,0], width: "100pct", display: "block", buttonOverColor: "rgba(148, 148, 148, 0)", fullscreen: true, timeBgColor: "rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)", scrubberBarHeightRatio: 0.2, bottom: 0, stop: false, zIndex: 1, sliderColor: "#000000", scrubberHeightRatio: 0.4, tooltipTextColor: "rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.55)", sliderGradient: "none", timeBgHeightRatio: 0.7, volumeSliderHeightRatio: 0.4, name: "controls", volumeBarHeightRatio: 0.2, left: "50pct", tooltipColor: "rgba(156, 156, 156, 0.25)", playlist: false, durationColor: "rgba(166, 166, 166, 1)", play: true, fastForward: true, progressColor: "#ffffff", timeBorder: "1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3)", scrubber: true, volume: true, builtIn: false } } }); © National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved. Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Log In _qoptions={ qacct:"p-cdKqrewDOys1A" }; var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1167326-1"); pageTracker._setDomainName("nationalreview.com"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview('/articles/253014/politics-budget-cutting-victor-davis-hanson'); function trackClick(elm, clickCategory, clickEvent, clickLabel, clickValue) { pageTracker._trackEvent(clickCategory, clickEvent, clickLabel); setTimeout('document.location = "' + elm.href + '"', 100); }- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Second, raising taxes has limits, as we see from the California meltdown. There, a 10 percent state income tax on upper incomes and a sales tax of nearly 10 percent did not result in balanced budgets, but instead sent many high earners and businesses out of state, and made the ones that stayed stop hiring and buying equipment. Employers will prefer to shut down or hide rather than take risks while they feed the ever-growing state beast.
Third, Democrats are always politically in a far better position than Republicans to cut federal spending. As the signature party of redistributive change, they are less vulnerable to charges of being needlessly cruel â?? in the same ironic way that conservatives give aberrant big-spending Republicans a pass, as if their profligacy were somehow out of character.
That paradox may explain why government spending as a percentage of GDP actually shrank under Bill Clinton, who achieved budgetary surpluses in three of his eight years as president â?? but deficits and government spending rose dramatically under George W. Bush. Yet Clinton was rarely derided by liberals as hard-hearted for his fiscal discipline or praised by conservatives for his parsimony. Nor was Bush often lauded as caring by the Left for his government generosity, or chastised much by the Right for his profligacy.
Fourth, politicians promise the easy cutting of generic â??waste and fraud,â? â??foreign aid,â? or â??unnecessary wars.â? The problem, however, is that waste, wars, and aid probably account for less than 5 percent of the federal budget this year. In contrast, more than 60 percent of yearly spending is devoted to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense expenditures not directly related to war. Budgetary discipline is impossible without a no-holds-barred discussion of demography, increased longevity, and the national-security perils of unsustainable national debt.
Fifth, self-interest governs the entire debate. Roughly half the public pays no income tax. And roughly half of Americans receive all of their income or a large part of it from the federal government. Beneficiaries vote for higher taxes on others and still more benefits for themselves. Benefactors obviously prefer fewer payouts for others and lower taxes on themselves.
And political affiliation is not always a clear guide. Despite public rhetoric, many conservatives will privately object to the cutting of any federal benefits they receive, while high-earning liberals might quietly resent having to pay increased taxes to be spent on others.
Sixth, there is always a â??you go firstâ? element to budget-cutting. The party that imposes discipline is demagogued, even as its opportunistic opposition usually claims credit for the improved economy that follows from the responsible policies of others.
What can the public do? Americans should laud any politician of either party who has the courage to work for balanced budgets, and they should hold accountable any who do not. Budget-cutting may be depressing, but it is not as depressing as bankruptcy (ask the French and the Greeks). Do not forget that just as households become upbeat when mortgages and credit cards are paid off, so too will Americans collectively recover their optimism and sense of pride when we are admired abroad for our fiscal sobriety rather than ridiculed for our spending addiction.
And look at it this way: In terms of our collective health and national security, a budget surplus is probably worth more than an expanded federal health-care entitlement, another Social Security cost-of-living increase, or a new aircraft carrier.
â?? Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Log In to Post a Comment
COMMENTS 2
EXPAND
Ed Lazear
11/11/10 11:53
Link
Report Abuse
VDH gives Bill Clinton too much credit by writing that he "achieved budgetary surpluses in three of his eight years." Following is a table of Total Public Debt Outstanding, courtesy of www.treasurydirect.gov: 3/30/2001 5,774 Bil 3/31/2000 5,773 Bil 3/31/1999 5,652 Bil 3/31/1998 5,542 Bil 3/31/1997 5,381 Bil Up every year. If there truly were surpluses, wouldn't the debt have gone down at least one year?
RTut
11/11/10 11:48
Read Full Article »