Deficits and debt have grown every year since 1960, with few exceptions.
Earlier this year, Gallup pollsters asked Americans how much they worry about the federal government’s deficit and debt. Seventy-seven percent worried about our nation’s red ink “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”
This result was not unusual. Every year since 2011, between 63 and 87 percent of the individuals polled have said they were worried.
Yet, elected officials have not responded by cutting spending or raising taxes. Mostly, they have engaged in theatrical battles over the debt limit and annual spending bills and then enacted legislation that made our nation’s finances worse.
America’s debt was around $12 trillion in 2012. Now it is $35 trillion.
This is a distressing state of affairs and a peculiar one. The theory of representative government holds that elected officials want to get elected, and that to do so they will respond to a majority — so long as what the people want is not utterly outrageous or unconstitutional.
Indeed, this is how it works in representative democracies worldwide, according to one study. Voters punish the leaders of parties that fail to perform fiscally. But the U.S. seems to be the exception to that rule.
Deficits and debt have grown in the U.S. almost every year since 1960, with very few exceptions. Yet presidents regularly get reelected to two terms: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all won twice. Clinton was the only one of the bunch who could credibly claim to have lowered the deficit and balanced the budget.
Among the losers, there is little evidence that voters sunk them because of their fiscal management. John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson quit. Gerald Ford was hated for pardoning Nixon. Jimmy Carter had other problems, such as Americans being kidnapped by Iranian militants. George H.W. Bush lacked “the vision thing” as he put it, and also ticked off some voters by trying to do the right thing — raise taxes to lower the deficit.
As for Donald Trump, I have yet to meet anyone who who voted against him because he was a poor fiscal steward.
In Congress, Democrats and Republicans have held the purse-strings various times over the past six decades. Neither of them has been able to establish a reputation for balancing budgets. In fact, typically they brag about the big federal “investments” they are making and the great tax cuts they have given us.
So what explains the disconnection between voters’ wishes and elected officials’ behavior?
Part of the fault rests with the voters. Too few tell our legislators and presidents directly that we dislike deficits. Really, when was the last time you sent a letter or email to anyone in power?
All too often, we cast our votes for other reasons — because we like this candidate’s stand on some issue (abortion, crime, etc.) and thereby implicitly excuse their poor management of the country’s finances.
Also, elected officials used to worry about the bond market reacting badly to excessive federal deficits. They were genuinely worried that egregious deficits could cause interest rates to spike and create pain for consumers. But a bond market backlash has not happened in a very long time. (Why is a matter for another column.)
Part of the problem is entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like. This “mandatory spending” grows automatically and without congressional action. In 1960, the United States had very little entitlement spending. Now those programs comprise about two-thirds of all spending.
And woe to the elected official who dares to suggest reducing any of those outlays. He or she will be tarred as a miser who wants the elderly to eat Alpo and the ill to go without medical care.
Mostly, however, politicians run deficits because they can easily dodge blame for doing so. Twelve spending bills need to go through two chambers and to the president’s desk. It’s easy for every participant to point the finger at someone else. Even the president can do it. In March 2018, for example, Trump signed a spending bill and then complained about it and derided Congress for sending him such a bill.
Our constitutional republic is a marvel, but unlike parliamentary systems, it is not very good at assigning responsibility for poor fiscal stewardship. So that is a great governance challenge worth our best thinking. Given the federal system we have, how can we incentivize elected officials to manage the nation’s finances responsibly?
Kevin R. Kosar is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He hosts the Understanding Congress podcast and edits UnderstandingCongress.org.
