Why do politicians, journalists obsess over deficits?

In August 1962, the Liberal prime minister bragged about how his latest finances had produced the next deficit that his Labor opponent.

He’d gained the federal election eight months earlier, defeating the Labor opposition led by Arthur Calwell, who had promised to eradicate unemployment through a deficit of 100 million kilos.

Robert Menzies promptly produced a deficit of 120 million.

“Too few folks realise {that a} money deficit of 120 million [pounds] … will of itself have a most expansionary impact,” he stated. “We will pay out to the residents 120 million [pounds] greater than shall be collected from them”.

He went on:

So, removed from being timorous — I feel that was one other of the phrases utilized by the deputy chief of the opposition — that is adventurous finance.

Add to the deficit the tax refunds now being made, and it’s clear that buying energy in Australia this monetary 12 months shall be uncommonly excessive.

The Liberals’ rode this cavalier method to the nation’s funds to an extra decade in energy. So how did we get so obsessive about the concept of deficits — a projection, lest we overlook, that by no means proves to be correct — being an incontrovertible signal of financial well being, no matter context? And do voters care half as a lot because the political class do?

Gough Whitlam

Gough Whitlam is the go-to instance of the Liberal Social gathering mantra — fortunately taken up by nearly all of the Australian media — that the ALP merely can’t handle cash. Primarily based on the underlying money stability — the usual by which, say, the Howard/Costello partnership is remembered so favourably — two out of three Whitlam’s budgets had been in surplus. With out stepping into the ethics or legality of the best way Whitlam’s authorities was swept from energy, the following election delivered his opponents an enormous majority.

Malcolm Fraser

Fraser, in flip, ran a Keynesian financial coverage, and 6 out of seven budgets had been in deficit (although decreased ranges) below his management. Certainly Fraser and his treasurer John Howard the place opposed on the topic, with Fraser desirous to stimulate the economic system, reeling from worldwide downturn within the early ’80s, by blowing out the deficit.

Hawke and Keating

Bob Hawke recognised that an opponent’s deficit was “political gold“, a cudgel that may very well be used to bludgeon a authorities. Nevertheless, his authorities didn’t ship a surplus till 1988, 5 years after taking workplace. This was famously described by Hawke’s treasurer Paul Keating because the one which “brings house the bacon”. The irony being, as Australian political historian Frank Bongiorno notes, “we recall this finances not as a result of it ushered in a wonderful financial period, however as a result of it proved to be the curtain-raiser on a deep and damaging recession”.

Howard and Costello

That is the period when the query of a deficit was actually allowed to get uncontrolled. As Jason Murphy famous in these pages, when the Howard authorities took workplace in March 1996, treasurer Peter Costello’s rhetoric was “indistinguishable from that of his predecessors”:

In his first finances speech that August [Costello] spoke of decreasing the deficit however gave no trace he meant to scale back nationwide debt to zero … That 12 months he ran a finances deficit. 

Then got here enormous tax windfalls, which modified the calculus of the following decade. As Murphy goes on, by the top of the Howard authorities, surpluses had been “laborious to keep away from” due to annual tax income having “doubled in contrast with when [Costello] took over the treasurer’s workplace”.

Put up-Howard

Just about each treasurer since has needed to function based on the template set by Howard and Costello and has discovered, for one cause or one other, that it was not possible. Inside a number of years of a world monetary disaster that his authorities had guided Australia by means of through stimulus spending, Wayne Swan introduced “4 years of surpluses” in 2012-13. He delivered none.

Joe Hockey, obsessive about Labor’s “debt and deficit catastrophe” and main the funds of a authorities claiming (dubiously) to have “inherited the most important deficits in Australia’s historical past from Labor”, produced a comically punitive and near-universally reviled finances, and thus picked out a grave plot for his authorities.

Josh Frydenberg maybe supplied the clearest instance of governing based on this absurd logic. The ink on the “again in black” merch, celebrating the Liberals projected return to surplus in 2019, had barely dried by the point one other world shock got here and worn out any risk that voters needed much less cash spent.

Which raises the query — if Whitlam is the exemplar of untamed fiscal irresponsibility, why have subsequent governments by no means instructed dropping the extent of presidency spending as a portion of GDP again right down to the extent it was when he took workplace?

Have one thing to say about this text? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please embody your full title to be thought-about for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the proper to edit for size and readability.