Op-Ed: An old-fashioned policy solution

Original article can be found here.

“American politicians are addicted to spending,” wrote U.S. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL). Although Scott was writing about the federal government and the $39 trillion national debt, this truth can be applied to policymakers at all levels.

Increasing levels of spending not only result in higher debt, but also often lead to further budget problems and higher taxes.

History is a great teacher, and policymakers can learn many important lessons. When it comes to spending discipline, Gov. Theodore Christianson provides today’s policymakers with a proven old-fashioned policy solution when it comes to fiscal policy.

Christianson was a budget hawk, and he got into many political quarrels over budget questions. It is always more difficult to say “No” than to say “Yes” when it comes to government spending.

Christianson, before he was elected governor, had served in the Minnesota House of Representatives and chaired the Appropriations Committee. In addition, he rejected the idea that politicians could not do anything to address spending.

“It is idle for politicians to offer the alibi that the cost of government cannot be held down…,” argued Christianson. Christianson was not a libertarian in his political philosophy, because he understood that government had priorities, but he did believe in the conservative view of limited government.

He also understood the burden of taxation on taxpayers and the damage it caused to the economy. Christianson argued that the problem of high taxation “touches the life of every citizen, and upon it depends on the prosperity of every community.”

“There is a limit to the load the people can bear. In many places that limit has been reached, in some cases it has been passed,” stated Christianson.

When it came to budgeting, Christianson understood the difficulty that arose. He advised policymakers that high levels of spending and taxation could be the result of any number of factors including: “laxness of executive control, duplication of governmental activities, loose checking of expense accounts, overlooking of payrolls, the selection of employees on a political basis without proper regard for efficiency, the exercise of unnecessary functions: these are a few of the avoidable causes of excessive taxation.”

Further, Christianson argued that government spends too much because it has expanded into too many areas. “There has, of late, been a tendency for governments to extend their activities into many new directions and to assume functions which were never considered as belonging to government,” noted Christianson.

Fundamentally, Christianson understood the root cause of the problem was not necessarily with politicians or their spending, but rather it was a cultural problem. “So I suspect if we want to stop this increase in the cost of government the first thing that we will have to decide to do is get along with less government or at least to put a stop to it when somebody tries to increase its functions and activities unduly,” argued Christianson.

If people want lower tax bills, then they need to make less demands upon government. Nevertheless, Christianson believed that policymakers could exercise policies to limit spending.

Christianson asked a question which still applies to all levels of government today. “What may a state do to bring about a reduction in taxation”? The answer, according to Christianson, is simple.

“Good government cannot be reduced to a formula,” argued Christianson. If policymakers want to reduce taxes, they need to limit spending. “I may be a little old fashioned, but I am ready to support the contention that the only way a state can reduce taxes is to spend less money,” stated Christianson.

Gov. Christianson offers a reminder that is worth remembering. “May it not be added that the chief reason for the high cost of government is too much government.” This may sound too simple, but it is a timeless truth.

This is how Gov. Theodore “More Ted, Less Taxes” Christianson governed. He understood that the heart of fiscal conservatism was prudent budgeting and limiting spending.