Back in March, I explained that a spending cap is desirable, but noted that it’s important to set a limit that actually restrains government spending.
I made the same point as part of a recent speech to Hawaii’s Grassroot Institute.
My main point is that the goal of fiscal policy should be to control government spending, ideally by making sure it does not expand faster than the private sector.
That’s my Golden Rule.
The problem in Hawaii is that there’s a spending cap, but it’s set too high. Politicians are allowed to increase spending at the rate of growth of state income.
It’s far better to cap spending so that it increases no faster than population plus inflation.
Like the TABOR rule in Colorado.
But that’s only part of the problem. As I noted in my remarks, Hawaii politicians routinely waive even the overly permissive limit in their state.
At the risk of repeating myself, they should copy Colorado.
I also explained to the audience that a balanced budget is nice, but it shouldn’t be the goal of fiscal policy.
- From an economic perspective, the real problem is spending, regardless of whether outlays are financed by taxes or borrowing.
- From a practical perspective, balanced budget requirements are unsustainable because revenues rise and fall with the business cycle.
- From a political perspective, politicians can opt to comply by increasing the tax burden, particularly during an economic downturn.
I’ll add a fourth point. governments (such as Switzerland) with successful spending caps have a very good track record of budget surpluses. The same can’t be said for European nations that are supposed to comply with anti-deficit rules.
Not that Switzerland’s success should come as a surprise. If you fix the disease of excessive spending, that automatically should solve the symptom of red ink.
P.S. Here’s an explanation of Switzerland’s spending cap.
P.P.S. Here’s how a spending cap could solve the fiscal mess in Washington.
———
Image credit: Noé Alfaro | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
