Government Watch / Politics

The Living Constitution: A Fiscal Responsibility Amendment

By Barry W. Poulson

Constitution

Two decades ago, Nobel Laureate James Buchanan, founder of the public choice school of political economy, proposed a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment to the Constitution. His proposal led to a lively discussion with other scholars, which was published in ‘The Living Constitution: Amendments for the 21st Century.’ This year, a new effort is underway to enact a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment in the Constitution, reviving this living constitution tradition.  

In the last two decades of the 20th century, the U.S. experienced a ‘Great Moderation’ in macroeconomic policy. More prudent fiscal policies eliminated deficits and reduced federal debt as a share of the Gross Domestic Product. Fed Chairmen Volker and Greenspan pursued rules-based monetary policies that reduced inflation to target rates. During this ‘Great Moderation’ in macroeconomic policy, the economy experienced rapid economic growth.

Over the last two decades, however, fiscal responsibility has been abandoned. Total federal debt as a share of Gross Domestic Product has increased to more than 100% and the U.S. has emerged as one of the most heavily indebted nations in the world. Under current law, deficits are projected to increase over the next three decades, and the ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product is projected to increase to more than 200% by midcentury. After two decades of fiscal and monetary stimulus, the Fed is now increasing interest rates sharply to combat inflation. The economy has entered a new era of stagflation not unlike that of the 1970s. It is difficult to imagine a more chaotic combination of fiscal and monetary policies, the era of ‘Great Moderation’ is clearly at an end.  

Buchanan perceived this dramatic shift in fiscal and monetary policy, arguing that fiscal responsibility would return to center stage in public discussion in the 21st century. He noted the fiscal impact of terrorism and natural disasters that added to the natural bias toward deficit spending. He also pointed out the risks of increased shares of U.S. debt held by Asian counties. But he could not have foreseen the fiscal impact of the financial crisis in 2008, and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

As Buchanan argued, Congress has missed many opportunities to enact a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment. In 1982 Joint Resolution 58 was proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, requiring for each year’s federal budget that ‘total outlays are no greater than total receipts’, without a three-fifths majority vote of both houses. Exceptions would allow for debt financing in emergencies such as major wars or natural disasters. Buchanan proposed a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment similar to Joint Resolution 58. Congress failed to reach the two-thirds majority vote required to pass Resolution 58, and over the years has failed to approve similar fiscal responsibility measures.

We have learned a great deal about fiscal rules in recent decades. The challenge is to impose constraints on spending and revenue while providing the flexibility to respond to economic shocks. Annually balance budget rules, such as that proposed by Buchanan, lack the flexibility to respond to economic shocks. Fiscal rules that have proven to be effective combine a structural balance rule with constraints on deficits and debt. For example, the Swiss debt brake was enacted as a constitutional fiscal rule through citizen initiative with support from 85% of the Swiss population. The Swiss debt brake requires structural balance with deficits offset by surpluses over the business cycle. A cap on spending is linked to the growth of the Swiss economy. A cap is also imposed on deficits, and when the deficit cap is reached the spending limit is reduced until the budget is again in balance. A Swiss-style fiscal rule has been adopted in other European countries and the European Union. This fiscal rule has enabled Switzerland and other European countries to significantly reduce debt as a share of the Gross Domestic Product.

In our book “Restoring Sustainable Macroeconomic Policy in the United States,” John Merrifield and I simulate Swiss-style fiscal rules for the U.S. We find that if these fiscal rules had been in place over the last three decades, we could have balanced the federal budget and reduced debt as a share of Gross Domestic Product, just as the Swiss have. Unfortunately, the U.S. now faces a debt crisis. It will be very difficult to close the fiscal gap and stabilize debt as a share of the Gross Domestic Product over the next three decades, even with Swiss-style fiscal rules in place.

Buchanan was well aware of the challenges facing rules-based fiscal policy. Fiscal rules are procedural rather than substantive constraints, subject to interpretations by the courts that can weaken and undermine fiscal responsibility. Even with fiscal rules in place, special interests and politicians can through ordinary democratic processes impose higher taxes and borrow to finance a greatly expanded public sector. Ultimately the success of fiscal rules depends on the will of citizens. In some countries, cultural dependence is so ingrained in public attitudes that a large unproductive rent-seeking welfare state is inevitable. Toward the end of World War Two Friedrich Hayek, in his famous tract ‘Road to Serfdom’, suggested that this outcome was likely in western democracies. Buchanan suggested that in the 21st century western democracies were again on this path to dependency. Nonetheless, he proposed a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment as an alternative path, before rules-based fiscal policy is completely abandoned.  

A Fiscal Responsibility Amendment could be proposed under Article V either by Congress or by the states through an amendment convention. A convention called for enacting a Fiscal responsibility Amendment would assure that such a constitutional change would reflect a broad consensus of support among citizens. Proponents of a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment argue that Congress has failed to acknowledge or count state resolutions calling for the Amendment, which is a clear breach of their mandatory and ministerial duty under Article V.  This year Representative Jody Arrington, Republican  Texas, and cosponsors have introduced legislation that would require Congress to record and count these applications, and when the requisite two-thirds of state have proposed the Amendment, to call the convention.  

 Surprisingly, much of the criticism of this effort to enact a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment through an Article V amendment convention has come from the political right. Critics argue that this effort could result in a runaway convention and undermine what they perceive to be a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. William Niskanen, in his contribution to ‘The Living Constitution: Amendments for the 21t Century’,  argued that a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution does not presume that the Framers got everything right, either for their generation or for ours. A strict originalist interpretation means that demands for constitutional change must be through the Article V processes for amending the Constitution. Niskanen emphasized the important distinction between the written Constitution and the effective constitution. The effective constitution requires only a majority of both houses of Congress, approval by the President, and a majority of the Supreme Court. “In other words, we have politicized and democratized the process of constitutional change to the point that the written Constitution is no longer even a parchment barrier to constitutional change”.  

As Buchanan and Niskanen argued in “The Living Constitution: Amendments for the 21st Century”, we can no longer leave fiscal policy to the discretion of elected officials, the era of ‘Great Moderation’ is at an end. Buchanan concluded that “fiscal irresponsibility stares us in the face and calls for correction”. An Article V convention to incorporate a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment in the Constitution could provide the necessary correction.


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael J
3 months ago

Lifetime career politicians are the reason we have deficit spending with no fiscal responsibility over Americas purse strings. Writing checks with nothing to back it up is criminal for everyone but government. Slight of hand spending is why these entrenched politicians need to go, while elections are almost decidedly determined by name recognition and advertising, it would appear that evaluating a candidate based on their merits lacks any accreditation or willingness to de-throne. This will all but ensure continued business as usual, astronomical debt to an already insolvent financial system with no relief in sight.

PaulE
3 months ago

An interesting article that actually delves deeper into causes of fiscal irresponsibility than the author may have intended. Specifically, the following paragraph actually explains why most politicians and all the MMT acolytes view any sort of prudent fiscal responsibility legislation as a direct threat to their usual style of governance and setting monetary policy:

“Buchanan was well aware of the challenges facing rules-based fiscal policy. Fiscal rules are procedural rather than substantive constraints, subject to interpretations by the courts that can weaken and undermine fiscal responsibility. Even with fiscal rules in place, special interests and politicians can through ordinary democratic processes impose higher taxes and borrow to finance a greatly expanded public sector. Ultimately the success of fiscal rules depends on the will of citizens. In some countries, cultural dependence is so ingrained in public attitudes that a large unproductive rent-seeking welfare state is inevitable. Toward the end of World War Two Friedrich Hayek, in his famous tract ‘Road to Serfdom’, suggested that this outcome was likely in western democracies. Buchanan suggested that in the 21st century western democracies were again on this path to dependency. Nonetheless, he proposed a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment as an alternative path, before rules-based fiscal policy is completely abandoned.”
  
Fiscal responsibility by governments is not some new or unknown foreign concept, but something most modern politicians and many of the Keynesian economists now advocating for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) simply decide to disregard for political expediency in order to help achieve their political and economic goals. Fiscal responsibility enforces “rules of the road”, only so long as all parties agree to abide by the constraints of sound fiscal policies. As such, even should a constitutional amendment somehow be enacted despite the almost unified resistance from the professional political class and their supporters in the administrative state, they would be several ways to circumvent the amendment either via the courts or through so-called “emergencies” that would conveniently arise to allow for “business as usual” political spending and taxation.

The reality is most politicians today are NOT interested in sound fiscal policies. They are not ignorant or uninformed about what both the short-term and long-term consequences are of their actions. They simply don’t care for the most part. In order to keep the political patronage system alive and well, politicians need to be able to spend taxpayer money with abandon to illicit the continued financial support (campaign contributions, speaking fees, book deals, etc.) that help keep the politcians in office. They are interested in getting their various political agendas enacted and financed through whatever means is most expedient to better them.

In order to get and keep any sort of fiscal responsibilty in place and operational, it would take a level of commitment by the general public that does NOT appear to exist in sufficient numbers. Most Americans today think simply voting every 2 or 4 years is all they need to do to maintain good governance in Washington, D.C.. Most don’t know what legislation is even on the table in either chamber of Congress until after the bills have already been passed and sent to the President for signature. So a vital part of the citizen oversight of the political class is already missing in action. Hayek was a brillant economist in that he understood exactly where a professional political class and an apathetic public unwilling to do anything but the bare minimum would eventually lead. His book The Road to Serfdom was meant to awaken the public to the dangers of where prolonged public apathy and willful ignorance would eventually lead. Fiscal responsibility requires ALL parties to do their part. Not just some. It certainly doesn’t work if one party is constantly seeking ways around the “rules of the road”, while the other party generally can’t be bothered to keep a close eye on what the first party is really planning to do.

Max
3 months ago
Reply to  PaulE

Well stated, Paul.

Hal
3 months ago
Reply to  PaulE

It seems that you have just knowingly or unknowingly justified (1) the NEED for Term Limits for Congress Persons and Exec Heads (IRS, HLS, FBI, etc.), and (2) a balanced budget amendment with negative consequences to the politicos if there is a failure to succeed in this process. The people of America are gradually becoming servants of the Politicos, news mediia moguls, and foreign money. GOD help us!!!!

PaulE
3 months ago
Reply to  Hal

1) We already have term limits. It’s called elections. All it takes is educated voters making informed decisions to clear out the deadwood. The problem is we don’t have enough truly educated and informed voters. We do however have tons of poeple that just make up their minds on who to vote for by watching 30 second TV ads. No term limits law fill fix that issue. Reducing voting to a completely irrelevant exercise does nothing to improving the quality of the governance the nation needs.

2) As we’ve discussed multiple times, the balanced budget amendment won’t work the way you think it will. I have already explained to you how the politicians will end up drafting the law to essentially allow them to continuing spending to their hearts’ content and simply enshrine automatic tax and regulatory fee increases for the public into every annual budget. Thus achieving a balanced budget every year. Just like how every Democrat run state is run today.

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for an educated and informed electorate keeping a close watch on the people they elect to carry out the will of the people. I fully understand the desire of some people to kind of try to automate the process of governance, so they can continue to ignore what politcians do and hope everything magically works out. Apathy and laziness are powerful human traits. Who wouldn’t want to put everything on autopilot and have everything run problem free without having to be concerned about what is being done on your behalf. The problem is the real world doesn’t work that way. Something most academics pushing these solutions consistently fail to take into consideration, because most have spent their entire adult lives in the protected confines of tenured academia.

Most politicians, left to their own devices and with no real oversight by the voters that elected them, will usually end up like what we have today in Washington. The politicians only act concerned when re-election time rolls around and then they trot out the usual talking points and hope that does the trick to get another 2 or 6 years in D.C..

As for the typical way any legislation is written by the staffs of members of Congress or the lobbyists that regularly hang out at the Capitol Building, there is a real art into taking a simple premise and twisting and bending until the end result is far from what was originally discussed or committed to. That’s how we end up with 2,000 page bills that should have been 1 or 2 page bills and packed with enough loopholes and exemption to sail the 7th fleet through with room to spare.

The people will only become servants of the politcians and others if they choose to continue to sit back and do nothing to stand up for themselves and their rights and freedoms. That is a choice the American people have to make as to what they ultimately want their futures to look like. Freedom and rights are things you have if you are willing to fight to protect them. They are NOT things you are simply entitled to. Most of the world has learned that lesson the hard way.

5
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x