deficit hawks

In a word, yes, but Stan's thoughtful post prompted me to think again about what it means to be a deficit hawk.  With some further reflection, I think there are two incentive problems that dominate all others on domestic policy.

One of these problems is that the federal deficit serves as a mechanism to facilitate the use of future taxpayers' income to buy votes for elected officials today.*  To be a deficit hawk is to be vigilant against all possible instances where that may occur.  Our political system creates many opportunities for it.  I think my best statement on the problem was How to Advise on Fiscal Policy, posted in July 2007. Here is the key excerpt, pertaining to what the President's advisers should be doing about it: 

I’m having increasing trouble identifying with the religious-like fervor many deficit hawks are expressing these days.  I also don’t think the hawks are advancing the debate by their take-no-prisoners attitude that often seems to cross the line to zealotry.

I need to emphasize from the start that I’m talking about real, substantively based deficit hawks rather than those who condemn deficits only when it suits their political purposes. This definitely does not include those who only think the deficit is terrible when the other political party is in the majority. In my mind you don’t qualify as hawk if you talk about the deficit but then fail to support the spending cuts and tax increases that would actually reduce it. In case anyone is wondering, you also aren’t a deficit hawk if all you do is support largely symbolic efforts like process changes.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me start from the beginning.

You can’t work on the federal budget as long as I have without being very concern