Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Yes, Government Can Be Shrunk
0 Comments

Yes, Government Can Be Shrunk

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

RALEIGH

I’ve been spending a lot of time recently in conversation with right-leaning leaders, policy experts, donors, and activists. My purpose is to assess the health and trajectory of American conservatism at this critical moment.

A common refrain from disgruntled conservatives is that for all the talk of reducing the size and scope of government, their movement has made little progress. Federal deficits are massive. There’s been no substantial reforms of the entitlements that now account for most of the federal budget — of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — and past administrations of both parties have mostly added rather than subtracted to the government’s powers and expenses.

I share their disdain for the utter lack of fiscal responsibility in Washington. It’s a bipartisan problem. But the federal government isn’t the whole story. Here in North Carolina, conservative governance has actually reduced the size of state government and significantly improved its fiscal condition.

Left-leaning politicians and organizations agree with my observation here — although they don’t, of course, consider it to be good news. According to the latest calculation by the North Carolina Justice Center, the budget deal that leaders of the state house and senate have struck will set General Fund spending for the 2021-22 fiscal year at just over 4.5% of North Carolina’s gross domestic product.

As a share of the economy, state spending has averaged about 5.8% over the past 45 years. It was well over 6% as recently as 2009. Since fiscally conservative Republicans won control of the General Assembly in 2010, however, budgets have gone up every year in dollar terms but have gone down almost every year when expressed as a share of GDP.

That’s because legislative leaders have stuck to their commitment to keep annual spending growth at or below the combined rates of inflation and population growth. Since GDP usually grows faster than that, the result has been to shrink the size and scope of state government. That has, in turn, allowed legislators to rebuild the state’s savings reserves, pay off state debt, and finance several rounds of growth-enhancing tax cuts.

There’s no “voodoo economics” here. Our tax cuts have likely boosted economic growth, to be sure, but not fast enough to produce a net revenue gain. The reason the state budget remains in surplus is that lawmakers have maintained spending discipline. There is every reason to believe they’ll continue to do so.

When the General Assembly changed hands in 2010, the state had accumulated state debts totaling about $8,000 per North Carolinian, according to a watchdog organization called Truth in Accounting. Some of that debt was on-the-books debt, the result of past bond issuances or of borrowing from Washington to fund unemployment-insurance benefits. And some of that debt represented an unfunded liability for state benefits owed to public employees upon retirement.

By 2020, North Carolina’s debt burden had tumbled to $1,400 per person — a dramatic improvement. While we still need to shore up the health plan for state employees and retirees, our state now ranks 14th on Truth in Accounting’s fiscal health index. If present trends continue, we’ll soon reach the top 10.

Are conservatives in state government more principled and committed than their counterparts in Congress and the executive branch? Quite possibly, but I don’t think that’s the main reason Raleigh (and some other state capitals) have gotten it right and Washington has gotten it so very wrong.

The divergence reflects the critical importance of rules and institutions. In North Carolina and nearly all other states, legislators and governors are required by their constitutions to enacted balanced budgets. While borrowing for capital needs is permissible and sometimes prudent, states generally aren’t allowed to finance operating expenses with debt. The federal government, of course, has no such rule.

It ought to. In all future elections for Congress or the White House, I plan to vote only for candidates who pledge to support a balanced-budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Will you join me?

John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member and author.

0 Comments

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

The U.S. Postal Service recently launched a postal banking pilot program that allows customers to cash payroll and business checks up to $500 in four cities: Washington, Baltimore, the Bronx and Falls Church, Virginia. This modest pilot is the foundation for more expansive contemplated postal banking services that could include bill-paying services, ATM access, and money order and wire ...

This has been a year marked by terrifying news about climate change: extreme weather, massive wildfires, persistent drought in some areas and catastrophic flooding in others. The sense of impending doom was made official when the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that the world is almost certain to blow past the target set by the 2015 Paris Agreement of holding ...

With the first Monday in October behind us, perhaps we can at last put to rest the refrain about how the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court is among the most momentous in history. The court’s terms are like presidential elections: Always, history has never seen one as important as the one coming up. But the wordsmith in me is aware that the rhetoric we use when discussing the Supreme Court ...

RALEIGH — Closing down school buildings for many months last year — and offering poorly planned and executed virtual schooling as an inadequat…

If Steve Bannon and other former aides to President Donald Trump refuse to testify before the congressional committee looking into the events of Jan. 6, should they be held in contempt? Plenty of partisans seem to be rooting for this result. I’d suggest to this and future Congresses that witnesses should be held in contempt only if the members are willing to return to the days when senators ...

One year ago, when my father was sliding toward the end, I had occasion to call 911 three times in the weeks before he died. During each fraught first-responder visit, my house filled with at least half a dozen brawny, uniformed paramedics and firefighters. We stood inches from one another as they took my father's vital signs to determine why he had fallen or passed out or — on the last visit ...

This Supreme Court term, which began Monday, is the culmination of five decades of efforts by conservatives to seize control of the court. It started when Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968 by campaigning against the liberal Warren Court and promising to fill the bench with strict constructionists. It continued with Ronald Reagan openly seeking to move the courts far to the right. And it ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News