Why Progressives Balance Budgets

A number of years ago in Ottawa, conservative writer and pundit David Frum spoke to an assorted group of policy wonks called the Cathay Club. After speaking about his experiences working in the second Bush White House and the future of the conservative movements in the United States and in Canada, he welcomed questions from the audience.

The first question had to do with the budgetary policies of those on the conservative side of the political spectrum, Ronald Regan, Brian Mulroney and Grant Devine, and those on the progressive or centre-left, Bill Clinton, Jean Chrétien and Roy Romanow. It was noted that these conservative leaders led administrations with out-of-control government spending, large deficits and increased government debt while Clinton, Chrétien and Romanow curtailed government spending, eliminated deficits and paid down debt. The question was put to Frum, why were progressives in power obsessed with balanced budgets while it appeared that conservative leaders could not care less?

Frum stood silent for a moment. He admitted that he had not given this topic a lot of thought and then said, “Next question.”

Even though Frum has not thought about this question, it certainly has given me a lot to ponder. Aside from the fact that conservatives appear to have an undeserved reputation for being good fiscal managers, why is it that those firmly on the ideological right drive up government spending or, as the many federal budgets under Mulroney and Harper show us, are incapable of balancing budgets?

Some might state that these ideologues are trying to achieve their goal of a minimal government by stealth. Shackled by unsustainable debt, future governments would be reduced to providing minimal services to citizens and, more importantly, they would lose their ability to “interfere” with market forces. The punitive tax levels that would be required to barely manage this fiscal situation would discredit government in the eyes of the citizenry.

Rather than achieving minimal government through the democratic process, it would be achieved through the “market tools” of overspending and unsustainable debt.

As interesting as this speculation might be, it is more productive to consider why progressive governments, those who believe in the economic and social well-being of the populace, are so interested in balanced budgets and controlled government spending?

After all, aren’t leaders on the centre-left supposed to be “tax and spend” types who care more for new and costly social programs than pinching pennies and balancing the books?

The reality is that progressive leaders know that running sustained deficits to finance services endangers their long-term viability. Just as pensions need to be funded for the long-term benefit of the contributors, services like health care, education and economic development need to be funded on an ongoing basis.

In order to preserve the health care system in Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow’s NDP government needed to close 52 hospitals in their first term, mostly in rural areas of the Province. Grant Devine’s PC Government had almost bankrupted Saskatchewan through political overspending. It took a centre-left government to administer the strong medicine that was needed to restore health the provincial finances.

Bill Clinton had to face down power-brokers within the Democratic Party in order to rein in the out-of-control spending that typified the Republican administrations of Regan and Bush Sr. Purse-strings needed to be tightened, and some social programs needed to be reduced, in order to prevent a debt crisis that the United States is now faced.

Clinton left office with a balanced federal budget. However, the subsequent Bush Administration squandered this achievement much in the same way the Harper Government blew though the multi-billion dollar budgetary surpluses left by the Chrétien and Martin Governments.   

Progressives believe in balanced budgets because it is the only way that social programs and economic well-being can be sustained over the long-term. Conservatives may have ideological reasons for high spending and high deficits, or they may just be incapable of exercising restraint while in power. Either way, it is not a policy that serves the long term interests of their people.

- 30 -

Chris Baker is President of Continuum Research, a public opinion consultancy specializing in public policy and public affairs based out of Fredericton, New Brunswick.

 

This article was originally published in the March 23, 2013 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.