I don’t want this thread to be a debate over the coronavirus or whether fiscal conservatism is *good *or not, but do want to ask whether things such as Trump sending out $2,000 checks to American households, or using massive economic stimulus, is *consistent *with being a “fiscal conservative.”
Can one call oneself a fiscal conservative while still supporting such things, or are they simply utterly at odds with the term?
Most people consider themselves fiscally conservative. Who thinks they waste massive amounts of money on stuff they don’t need or won’t use? In the political arena I think it’s the same.
While I don’t agree with the second statement I see nothing at least inconsistent with:
“American families are hurting, we all need $2,000 to help ease the burden”
VS
“People on welfare are lazy and should get a job, they don’t need a $2,000 handout”.
Except that the second statement is disingenuous. It’s one thing if they want to scale back the scale of welfare cash transfer payments; it’s another to year after year oppose any and everything that might provide some cushion for those who are struggling economically and instead focus on giving tax breaks to people who are absurdly wealthy.
Republicans know - shit, we all know or should know - that billionaires aren’t going to reinvest their extra tax savings in hiring people and giving those currently employed raises.
When has the Trump administration behaved in ways that would normally be called fiscally conservative? Or the last Bush administration for that matter?
Maybe some tax cuts can be called that. But any spending cuts have targeted programs for ideological reasons, not fiscal ones. At the same time huge increases in military spending occurred, with Congress often ordering more than the Pentagon asked for in order to benefit local companies.
And people have pointed out that the exceptionally low interest rates that were imposed during a soaring economy have left no options for a boost now when they are actually needed. Deficits that would be screamed about under a Democrat are simply ignored when Republicans generate them.
In short, there is no modern ideology of fiscal conservatism. It’s irrelevant to ask whether or not any action comports to a non-existent philosophy.
This. Pretty much nothing fiscal conservatives do is consistent with being a “fiscal conservative”. Why should they start with their coronavirus response?
My point isn’t asking whether *Trump *is fiscally conservative or not - he clearly isn’t. I’m just asking if fiscal stimulus or sending $2,000 to Americans is *inherently *anti-fiscal-conservative, Trump or no Trump.
The problem is that there is no official definition of what “fiscally conservative” actually means. It, like “family values” or “patriotism”, is just a buzzword that gets passed around to say that the proposals you support are right while those of your opponent are wrong.
Exactly. The term has no objective meaning these days.
To be fair, most policies feasible in normal times get tossed out the window in a true existential crisis. What would a fiscally conservative solution to a pandemic closing down the country look like even in theory?
In America we privatize profits and socialize losses. It’s been that way since after the Panic of 1907, which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve.
If there’s data to show that sending checks to everyone will prevent a few down quarters from turning into another Great Depression, it is fiscally conservative to do so. Similarly, when nominal rates are new zero and real rates are below zero, it can be fiscally conservative to issue debt in order to invest in infrastructure to help the long term health of the economy. Similarly, the data shows that keeping children safe, healthy, and educated makes them better taxpayers, so it’s fiscally conservative to invest in programs like pre-school, S-CHIP, and the like.
Fiscally conservative doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean just not spending money. It means spending money on sensible things, and taxing at a reasonable level to pay for what you’ve decided to spend.
The programs in 2008 that supported the banks and the auto companies, for example, probably prevented a full-blown depression, so were fiscally conservative in that sense.
Well, that sure ain’t how I’ve heard the term used. Not that it’s ever been presented particularly coherently, but I’ve certainly never heard it as including a concern for actual consequences.
I would disagree with your definition. You have basically defined “fiscally conservative” as any combination of actions that work. That is frankly disingenuous. As others have pointed out, the use of the term “fiscally conservative” is purely political, and meant to distinguish one from an opponent.
Oh, I know it’s just virtue signalling in real life, but I’m thinking in terms of what Milton Friedman might get comfortable with.
ETA: Icarus, agreed, but I was trying to answer the OP, where they’re not looking for the political definition. So, if I had to figure out what fiscal conservatism should mean, I’d go with my examples as a start.
I gather that he was a firm ideological believer in the hand of the free market, and that he would disagree with the rather flagrant government impositions of the government into the market that you propose.
Paul Krugman, at least, says that Friedman was not an ideologue and was way more flexible than his Republican followers give him credit for. For example:
Anyway, I’m not here to defend Friedman or try and rehabilitate the term “fiscal conservative”. I was just trying to point out that “fiscal conservatism” shouldn’t mean “lower taxes on corporations, only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in office, and screw the little guy” even though it might mean that in practice.
To that point, Friedman was the one who coined the famous phrase “We are all Keynesians, now” (many times attributed to Richard Nixon) upon noting that in times of economic distress, regardless of ideology, people turn towards the government to prime the (money) pump.
Well, if the goal is to utterly ignore the current meaning of the words fis-cal con-serv-a-tis-m and redefine them base on the policies of Milton Friedman, then it might be instructive to refer to his position on paying for schooling. (Since you brought that up, and all.)
So. Milton was, at least in one case, okay with distributing government funds to private individuals to allow them to employ choice as a market force in supporting which institutions they wanted to support. Given that, he might also be okay with just handing everybody cash and letting them stimulate the market as they will - meaning that at least the $2000 checks described in the OP would be “fiscally conservative” under our shiny new definition.
Whether a “massive economic stimulus” would qualify would probably depend on how it was implemented.
I think such a measure as you have described is misguided, but it is possible to reconcile short-term stimulus spending with long-term austerity measures. I doubt there are many at this point who disagree with Keynes in the short term.
For example, a fiscal conservative might pair a one-time stimulus package with so many years of some marginal tax.
As to whether our elected officials are fiscal conservatives… hah!
Oh, there is an unfortunate flavor of fiscal conservatism which is built on supply-side economic theory. For an adherent of such an ideology, short-term stimulus spending might be offset by long-term increased tax revenue from well placed tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks.