As part of my ongoing series on why the term "fiscal conservative" is a lie, let me offer some perspective on what actual fiscal conservatism would look like.
In order to take federal government spending down to the highest levels ever put forth by FDR before World War Two, (11.18% of GDP in 1941) from the lowest level ever put forth by the Republican trifecta under Bush (19.21% of GDP in the 2002 budget that passed before Democrats retook retook the Senate in July 2001), would require an overall spending cut of $1.15 trillion. Further, the spending cut cannot be culled from any of the following areas, all of which were added after 2002:
- Any spending on Iraq and Afghanistan
- $150 billion in non-Iraq and Afghanistan defense spending
- The Medicare prescription drug benefit program passed in 2003
- Any of the recent bailouts
- Any stimulus spending.
In order to return to FDR levels of federal spending, it is necessary to completely end all spending in the areas listed above, and then find additional $1.15 from in savings elsewhere. Here are the options for the remaining cuts:
- $695 billion: Social Security
- $400 billion: Medicare (after the prescription drug benefit has already been removed)
- $375 billion: Defense (after all Iraq and Afghanistan have been removed, and remaining defense spending already cut by 30%)
- $290 billion: Medicaid
- $164 billion: Interest on debt
- $571 billion: Unemployment, VA benefits, and all other mandatory programs
- $704 billion: All non-defense discretionary spending
Figure out a way to cut $1.15 trillion from that list, and then call yourself a fiscal conservative. Or, call yourself as fiscally conservative as FDR, since those cuts would only take you down to his highest, pre-World War Two federal spending levels.
Instead of proposing anything close to such sweeping cuts, so called fiscal conservatives actually propose the following:
- The self-described "fiscal conservative" Blue Dogs cut a total of $7 billion in spending from next year's federal budget. This represents 0.2% of the overall federal budget, or 1 of every 500 dollars spent.
- The spending programs in the stimulus package that Republicans demanded cut amounted to a total of $6 billion in an overall package of $800 billion. Their primary media focus was on even smaller percentage of the bill, targeting $200 million for the National Mall, $150 million in family planning, $140 million on volcano monitoring, and other very small programs.
- During his presidential campaign, John McCain kept attacking earmarks, even though earmarks do not represent a single dollar in additional government spending. They are, instead, specific allocation direction given to funding that has already been approved.
The amount of spending attacked by so-called "fiscal conservatives" is comical compared both to current overall spending levels, and also to the percentage increase that took place within federal spending from 1929 (when federal spending was 3.68% of GDP) to1982 (when federal spending was 22.91% of GDP) .
At best, fiscal conservatism is a harmless label people give to themselves when they are unaware of both current and historic spending levels. A less favorable appraisal of the term is that is a lie perpetuated by many politicians who don't actually intend to reduce the size of government, but want to appear as though they intend to do so. At worst, it is a horrifying proposal to reduce all government programs, from Social Security to Defense to roads to education, by between 25-50%.
"Fiscal conservatism" is one of the more fundamentally inaccurate and / or dishonest terms used in our political discourse today. To turn people against conservatism itself, it is imperative that progressives start calling out this lie as often as possible. |
