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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment