Say No to This: America's Fiscal Norms Are in Decline
Despite their informal nature, those norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy. But they're eroding.

Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle recently wrote that the best argument made in favor of limiting the size of the stimulus during the Great Recession—part of a larger conversation about austerity—was one of ethos. "We weren't spending the money in theory," she wrote, "or in 1945, when an ethos of fiscal responsibility prevailed. We were spending it in the 21st century, when that ethos had collapsed, so there was a considerable chance that when the good times finally rolled around, no politician would willingly undertake the sacrifices necessary to get the budget back in shape."
She got me thinking about America's fiscal norms.
It's fair to say that the ethos of sound fiscal and monetary policy started with none other than Alexander Hamilton. In his January 1790 Report on Public Credit, Hamilton advocated for fully funded permanent public debt. This report laid the groundwork for a financial system supported by securely backed debt together with commodity money. Later that year, Hamilton proposed the establishment of the Bank of the United States. Though not a central bank by today's standards, he thought it crucial for securing federal credit and a stable currency. Hamilton recognized the interconnectedness of fiscal and monetary policies.
Since then, the United States and most stable countries have developed norms guiding different kinds of policy behavior. U.S. monetary policy norms have largely evolved through legislative actions, shaping the roles and responsibilities of our central bank—the Federal Reserve—in managing the currency and responding to economic shifts. By contrast, according to University of Virginia economist Eric Leeper, America's fiscal policy norms have emerged more informally. These have been shaped by historical practices and significantly influenced by Hamilton's understanding of dynamic economic behavior.
Contrary to monetary policy, which has fairly stable and clear policy objectives (a stable price level and full employment), fiscal policy objectives are unclear and always changing. This makes the norms that guide policymakers more important.
Leeper highlights three fiscal norms. One, established in one of Hamilton's 1790 reports, is that budget deficits should be followed by budget surpluses (i.e., the government pays off its debts). The second is that ordinary spending should be paid for with taxes while emergency spending can be paid with borrowed funds to be repaid later. The third is that austerity becomes necessary when interest payments on outstanding debt become a sufficiently large fraction of federal expenditures.
Despite their informal nature, these fiscal norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy in a meaningful way, even without a gold standard or other formal devices often found in history. They're also important because they determine long-term expectations for fiscal policy. These expectations, in turn, influence bond prices, inflation, and the real economy, keeping things relatively stable.
So far, adherence to these informal fiscal norms has paid off. U.S. Treasuries are a cornerstone of the global financial system, serving functions akin to money worldwide. However, the norms are weakening.
While legislators have not abandoned the idea of repaying all the debt, they are making decisions that will eventually make it much more difficult. Further, since the Great Recession, emergency spending financed with debt hasn't spurred the creation of fiscal surplus to repay it. A look at the debt-to-GDP ratio since 2008 shows an upward trajectory with no plans to return to pre-2008 levels.
In addition, after the roughly $6 trillion in COVID emergency spending—and unlike the Obama administration post–Great Recession—the Biden administration has not acknowledged the need for austerity. Debt-service costs are going through the roof, with interest payments growing to $1 trillion a year and eclipsing defense and Medicare spending, yet the administration shows no notable willingness to course correct. In fact, as McArdle notes, "President Biden isn't talking about fiscal sanity; he's talking about massive child-care subsidies" and about more student debt forgiveness.
The fear is that eroding fiscal norms will change investors' expectations about being repaid for government debt, something that comes with just about every bad economic consequence one can imagine. The breakdown can also affect monetary policy. With federal debt equaling 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), most of it financed through short-term bonds, any interest rate hikes dramatically increase the budget deficit. This could affect the Fed's ability and willingness to fight inflation with more rate hikes and further debt increases.
An ethos of fiscal responsibility and healthy fiscal norms are a big deal. We should lament their erosion.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What difference, at this point, does it make?
I think I see your problem. You've got money based on nothing, and a license to create unlimited amounts, and you're counting on the honor system to keep it in check? Gimme a break.
Sounds good:
ordinary spending should be paid for with taxes while emergency spending can be paid with borrowed funds to be repaid later.
but what really happens:
1- there is always an emergency
2- there is always a future administration to pay for it
My preference is that capital expenditures be financed by debt, while current expenditures be financed with taxes, a reserve created for emergency expenditures, akin to captive insurance - in effect creating a somewhat hypothecated budget
budget deficits should be followed by budget surpluses
Keynesianism, basically. Traditionally, governments have been asymmetrical Keynesians - willing to run deficits in recessions, but unwilling to run surpluses during booms.
I do however question the assertion that the Fed operates under (fairly) clear policy objectives. Stabilizing prices and maximizing employment are not only NOT clear, they frequently contradict each other. The Fed's "ability and willingness" to fight inflation are clearly being undermined by the reckless fiscal anarchy besetting Congress and the Executive branch. I doubt that even a Constitutional clause requiring Congress to allocate no more than the previous three-year average of revenues collected in any fiscal year would have the intended effect here since they have not constrained themselves within the confines of the Constitution at any time in the last eleven decades and the Supreme Court is unlikely to start holding them accountable in the next few decades.
The fear is that eroding fiscal norms will change investors’ expectations about being repaid for government debt,
The major norm that de Rugy does not mention, related to this expectation, is that the debt ceiling will be raised in order to meet commitments already made. Congress’s fucking about with the debt ceiling is of more immediate concern to investors than some of the norms she mentions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit-rating_downgrades
S&P: "The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy."
I know it's fashionable to blame Biden, but there's no way Trump would've or could've done much different. Although he may have pushed through a tax cut to make things worse, so there's that.
In recent years, the landscape of business has undergone a significant transformation, largely due to the rise of online commerce. There are many possibilities for creating a website. Next, use reliable payment systems https://corefy.com/ that will make payments for your business fast and secure. The shift towards conducting business in the digital realm has brought forth numerous advantages for entrepreneurs and established enterprises alike. Online business model can be incredibly advantageous.