It seems to be a dying breed. Activism about fiscal conservatism. Everyone seems more concerned with social issues than spending. Regardless of partisanship, we can all agree (I think) that there is some useless spending in our economy (I’m not saying all) I’m not trying to start a flamewar/debate/hijack-o-thon
But, are there any organizations that are non-partisan or bi-partisan which are concerned with fiscal and/or financial matters in congress, senate, or politics in general?.. those which deal with earmarks, taxes, or general misspending of money? If so, who are they?
The Concord Coalition for one. It’s “a a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to informing the public about the need for generationally responsible fiscal policy.”
One starting point is Porkbusters.org. They’re pretty pissed off at Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd for putting a secret hold on Senate bill 2590, which would create a website with info on almost all recipients of federal funding. Not sure they can be called nonpartisan.
I woud echo the Concord Coalition. Sens. Paul Tsongas and Warren Rudman started it. How much influence they have I can’t say. But I think they are a solid group.
Citizens Against Government Waste is more partisan towards the GOP. But they do attack big spending Republicans. Their annual Pig Book can be an interesting read. Local chapters will also discuss porkbarreling at the state levels.
The oldest canard in politics is that significant money exists which is unnecessary or fraudulent and that budgets can be balanced and taxes reduced if we just get rid of it.
Take a look at the graph at federalbudget.com. Virtually all the money spent by the government goes to Social Security, Health and Human Services, the Defense Department, and interest on the debt. Everything else combined is rounding error.
Now there may be a good case for cutting one or more of these. It could be argued that cutting the Defense budget in half would not leave us any the less safe.
However, this is never what anyone talks about when the subject is fiscal conservatism. That argument centers on the few percent of the few percent of what is left in the budget after the untouchables and the inarguably legitimate programs are eliminated. Earmarks may be waste but they directly benefit a certain segment of the population, who have no incentive to give them up. Either all earmarks need to be eliminated or none will be. That calls for collective action against individual interest, and not even fiscal conservatives will volunteer to be first. (The case is often made, in fact, that so-called fiscal conservatives are especially good at gaining federal spending for their own districts. See: Gingrich, Newt.)
Even small savings can be important, of course, but cutting government spending and fiscal conservatism are no longer realistic political or philosophical positions. Government spending is far too unbalanced.