The First Federal Congress met in New York City on March 4, 1789, and the challenges it faced were enormous. Foreign threatsâthat Alexander Hamilton had characterized as âthe dangers ⌠from the arms and arts of foreign nationsââhad been mounting, and Hamilton was even more concerned with the âdissensions between the States themselves and from domestic factions and convulsions.â1 The new Constitution called for âa more perfect Union,â but Congress first had to translate its design and principles into a functioning and effective government.2
Congress also inherited the seemingly mundane but critically important task of restoring the nationâs credit. When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the United States had accumulated an enormous debtâan estimated $43 million held by foreign and domestic creditors.3 Lacking the power to tax, the Articles of Confederation government could not meet its debt obligations. Interest payments were delayed or missed entirely, the size of the debt continued to grow, and the public credit rapidly deteriorated. Hamilton, the nationâs first secretary of the treasury, was directed by Congress to prepare a âproper plan for the support of the Public Credit.â4 His plan was reported to Congress on January 14, 1790, and its key recommendations were adopted later that year. But debates over the plan were bitter and protracted, and Hamiltonâs subsequent Report on a National Bank further galvanized critics of his broad interpretation of federal fiscal powers.5
The Federalist âHigh Financeâ program that Hamilton implemented achieved its immediate goal. By the mid-1790s, the public credit of the United States was firmly established in both domestic and European credit markets.6 Nevertheless, Hamiltonâs belief that the federal government should manage and secure, rather than retire, its debt prompted Thomas Jefferson (and James Madison) to organize an opposition party that rejected deficit finance. For Jefferson, whose antipathy to federal debt was visceral, balanced budgets were a vital safeguard against corruption and economic inequality.7 Balanced budgets with limited taxation and spending would further insure that the federal government upheld what Jefferson believed were the âgenuine principlesâ of the Constitution.8 When the Jefferson administration took office in 1801, it pledged to eliminate federal deficits and debt. Jeffersonian Republicans, reorganized and rechristened as Democrats in the late 1820s, would go on to dominate national elections for more than half a century. Although intraparty factions fought over many issues, Jeffersonâs beliefs about balanced budgets and a limited federal government defined this first fiscal era in American political development.
The Civil War gave rise to a political majority with a more positive view of federal power. While the new Republican party believed in balanced budgets and low debt, it also embraced federal support for economic and industrial development. A protective tariff system was created to subsidize American manufacturers and industries, and tariff revenues (and excise taxes) were used to fund public works projects and other spending programs. Instead of limiting what the federal government could do, post-Civil War balanced budgets supported federal efforts to meet domestic needs. Then, when income taxes became the main source of federal revenues during World War I, the Republican partyâs approach to balancing the budget changed. Lower taxes and lower spending were now Republican priorities. The federal budgets of the 1920s were larger than Jeffersonâs small government ideal, but balanced-budget conservatism was a limiting vision nonetheless.
With onset of the Great Depression and World War II, federal budgets reached entirely new levels of spending, taxation, and debt. This transition to modern government was the work of a Democratic party majority whose electoral dominance would continue until the 1980s. Over this period, the balanced-budget rule became more flexible, as policymakers adopted countercyclical fiscal policies to stabilize and strengthen the economy. Nevertheless, presidents and Congresses were still expected to balance budgets when possible and otherwise to limit deficits and debt burdens.
For roughly two decades after World War II, for example, a political consensus on Cold War defense budgets provided the necessary support for tax policies and revenue levels that kept budgets at or close to balance. With the social welfare expansions of the late 1960s and 1970s, that consensus eroded, and balanced-budget discipline was more difficult to maintain. Finally, in the 1980s, electoral realignment and partisan divisions over spending and taxation ushered in the era of deficit politicsâa willful disregard of deficits and debt without precedent in the nationâs history.
The balanced-budget rule that Jefferson advocated so forcefully in the early 1800s was more than an accounting device. It incorporated ideas about the role of the federal government in American life and the spending and tax policies that defined that role. While ideas about the size and role of government later changed, the rule itself proved markedly resilient for nearly two centuries. A closer look at this history provides a helpful perspective for understanding the deficit politics phenomenon that ultimately subverted it.
Jeffersonian Balanced Budgets, 1789â1860
The framers of the Constitution were intent on remedying the fiscal defects that had plagued the Confederation government, and the Article I powers to tax, spend, and borrow they approved were deliberately broad. The borrowing authority was, as a prominent nineteenth-century historian noted, âwell-nigh complete; there is no limitation as to time, manner, place, amount, security, payment, or interest.â9 During the constitutional ratification process, this unchecked federal borrowing authority raised serious concerns, and some states called for a constitutional amendment requiring congressional supermajorities to authorize any federal borrowing.10 Similar reservations were raised about the taxing and spending provisions, which contained elastic language as well. Ratification was secured despite these concerns, but debates over federal fiscal powers continued during the 1790s and beyond.
There was greater acceptance, by comparison, of constitutional provisions that assigned to Congress the power of the purseâwhich Madison hailed as âthe most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.â11 Congressional control of taxing, spending, and borrowing was, for Madison, a necessary check on the executive. Almost immediately, however, the First Congress found itself trying to defend that authority against executive encroachments.
Rejecting the Hamilton Model
In establishing the Department of the Treasury in 1789, Congress debated whether the secretary of the treasury should be authorized to report âplans for the improvement and management of the revenue.â12 While the departments of Foreign Affairs (State) and War created earlier that year were directly accountable to the president, the Treasuryâs unique role raised concerns about executive interference with congressional prerogatives. This possibility was sufficiently troubling that Congress debated whether a multimember Treasury board might be a safer alternative for managing the federal governmentâs financial affairs.13
In the end, Congress decided that a single executive should head the new department, but the word âreportâ was rejected. The final text of the Treasury Department statute approved on September 2, 1789 provided instead that the secretary could âprepareâ revenue plans, along with plans âfor the support of public credit.â14 Despite this precaution, Alexander Hamilton, who was then unanimously confirmed as treasury secretary, seized the initiative on fiscal matters and championed executive policy leadership. Congress eventually rebelled against executive direction, but Hamiltonâs spending, tax, and debt program encountered strong opposition almost from the beginning.
Hamiltonâs tenure began with a highly controversial plan for managing the nationâs debt. Article VI of the Constitution mandated that âAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.â Hamiltonâs plan included honoring the nearly $55 million in domestic debt and foreign debt at its original, or par, value and assuming the approximately $25 million in outstanding debt incurred by the states.15 Congressional approval for these measures was secured only after Hamilton agreed to support relocating the nationâs permanent capital to a federal district on the Potomac.
In 1791, Hamilton again marshalled congressional support for legislation chartering the First Bank of the United States. He then persuaded President Washington to sign the measure, despite Secretary of State Thomas Jeffersonâs strong objections to its constitutionality.16 At Hamiltonâs urging, and again in the face of opposition from Jefferson and his followers in Congress, the first federal excise tax was enacted in 1791. Other internal taxes soon followed, including federal taxes on carriages and land. The far-reaching tax program implemented by Hamilton and his successor, Oliver Wolcott, included sinking funds (or pledged revenues) for servicing the debt, and within a remarkably brief time the public credit had been restored and strengthened.17 Hamiltonâs focus, however, was on managing the debt rather than eliminating it. A secure public credit, in his view, would allow the nation to borrow easily and cheaply during wartime or other emergencies. It would also help to buttress an expansive federal spending and tax program and âpromote the development of the central state.â18
The political aims of Hamiltonâs debt program and national bank proposal were complementary. The assumption of state debts, for example, was intended to build support for the new federal government among the prosperous and influential individuals who held those debts. Tying their self-interest to the federal government would, Hamilton believed, counter interstate tensions and rivalries that had proved so troublesome. Th...