There's nothing new about big-spending presidents

This predicament is illustrated by the dramatic change in the composition of government outlays over time. Entitlement spending soared from 28% of total expenditures in 1962 to 53% in 1995, while discretionary spending fell from 66% to 28%. (The remainder represents payments of interest on the debt, which has put added pressure on domestic spending since the late 1970s.)

The shift from discretionary spending to entitlement and interest payments on the debt severely has curtailed the ability to address current needs or respond to today's voter interests. Entitlements are not temporary or designed to respond to any current measure of need.

Perhaps even more important than these factors is entitlements' scheduled rate of future growth, regardless of the status of the economy. Outlays for programs such as Social Security and Medicare increase faster than the economy, so the revenues made available by economic expansion are prespent on such entitlements. This pressure forces discretionary programs as well as entitlements without built-in growth into further decline. Expenditures on today's entitlements, therefore, are intrinsically different from domestic spending of the New Deal. because FDR's programs were designed primarily to be temporary in nature.

This fiscal straitjacket explains the effects the Republican and Democratic balanced budget agreement will have on the size and composition of government. Domestic spending as a percentage of GDP will not grow, defense spending will remain on a decline, and entitlements will continue to crowd out discretionary spending.

The above presidential rankings obviously skip over important factors such as composition of the Congress, precedents set by one administration and followed by the next. and public demands. The purpose is not to grade the presidents by this ranking, but to draw three important lessons for the future.

First, entitlement growth and the demise of postwar easy financing options continue to constrain government's ability to respond to current needs. As long as future added revenue entirely is precommitted, deficit reduction alone -- at least of the type the nation has had for the last 15 years -- never will remove that constraint. Not even a balanced budget provides a cure. Pressure on discretionary programs such as community development and educational opportunity for children -- initiatives without built-in growth -- will not be relieved until precommitted growth for other programs is brought under control and a more level playing field is established.

Second, if younger generations have become less accepting of government, it is partly because they are denied ownership of current budgets. Third, presidents' budget policies should be graded less on their political philosophies and more on their vision in dealing with the fiscal opportunities and constraints that prevailed during their time in the White House.

COPYRIGHT 1998 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning