“Fiscal conservative” sounds great but the reality is it stands for your definition.
I called myself a fiscal conservative, until I understood what it actually stood for. Since that time 15-20 years ago, I use the term “fiscally responsible” since “fiscal conservatives” want handouts to big corporates and the top 5%, and everyone else are on their own.
Feel free to use Wikipedia’s definition of a fiscal conservative if you prefer it to mine: “A political and economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government debt. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes and privatization are the defining qualities of fiscal conservatism.” By that definition, the economic stimulus payment raised in the OP are not fiscally conservative as they represent increased government spending. See post #23, point 1.
However, the question from the OP is: “Can one call oneself a fiscal conservative while still supporting such things, or are they simply utterly at odds with the term?” My reading of the question is that it is asking whether a broader view of fiscal conservatism supports “drastic measures for drastic times”, “paying now to avoid paying more later”, or a preference of pragmatism over orthodoxy. In support of the drastic measures argument, I’ll note the fiscal conservative George H. W. Bush chose to go to war with Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait, and the fiscal conservative Margaret Thatcher chose to go to war with Argentina over the invasion of the Falkland Islands. Both of those decisions fall outside the bounds of traditional fiscal conservatism. The fiscal interventions being taken as a result of Coronavirus quarantines seem less controversial than either of those two decisions since the majority of governments of developed countries, regardless of their party leadership, are making those interventions. “Paying now to avoid paying more later” is even easier. In normal times, it’s called maintenance. I hope you’ll agree that it’s more fiscally responsible to spend money each year keeping a keeping a bridge in a good state, than letting the bridge fall into disrepair and suddenly requiring a new bridge. I’m aware that both the US and the UK have issues with their infrastructure maintenance budgets. I reject the idea that avoiding maintenance costs now and forcing higher costs later is fiscal conservatism. Feel free to label that as Humpty-Dumptyism if you want. I’ve already noted that Fiscal Conservatism is a set of principles, not a single iron-clad rule. See post #23, point 2. On pragmatism, conservative philosophy is generally reduced to the truism “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The corollary to that is that if it is broke, do fix it. I hope you agree that the Coronavirus is causing serious worldwide disruption, aka a “broke” circumstance. If you’d like to learn more about modern conservative philosophy and its background and thoughts on how it relates to pragmatism, here’s a very good essay: Conservatism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So which principals of fiscal conservatism that I’m espousing are you rejecting? It’s easy to make a caricature of the ideas of people you disagree with. See post #28. Do you have an actual definition of fiscal conservatism that is a non-caricature? You can equate Trumpist doctrine or Bush II doctrine with fiscal conservatism, but that’s like saying that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Jeremy Corbyn are fiscal liberals. I’m basically saying that I believe that the economic stimulus payments raised in the OP are consistent with a centre-right, fiscally responsible economic philosophy that I would label as fiscal conservatism. Feel free to disagree with me, and I’ll readily bet that you can easily find low-hanging fruit of right-wingers claiming to be fiscal conservatives while supporting tax cuts and opposing spending cuts. However, it’s even easier to find examples of the US or UK far-left claiming to be the true left and then being rejected by more moderate voters. The question should be, do those US citizens who identify as fiscal conservatives as a group oppose economic stimulus payments, or is it consistent with their general economic principals. I’m confident that it’s the latter.
I won’t, because it excludes the actual people who claim to be fiscal conservatives and the people they vote into power and support.
Real simple test that I laid out above: do you support UHC? If no, then you’re not actually fiscally conservative in any meaningful sense, as you simply want to spend massively more money for massive worse outcomes as long as poor people are worse off. Spending more money for worse outcomes is just not ‘fiscally conservative’ if the words are supposed to have any real meaning.
It’s easy to whine that people making accurate observations of you an your ilk are making ‘caricatures’. It’s not true though, and highlights why having discussions with any type of ‘conservative’ is usually so non-productive - any discussion of the many negative things ‘conservative’ ideas result in when it’s applied to the real world is dismissed as a ‘caricature’.
And I will, because they are the actual examples of fiscal conservatism in action that exist in the real world. You’re trying to define the people that ‘fiscal conservatives’ in the real world vote into office and support the policies of as not fiscally conservative, and that’s just nonsense - if your ultra-positive definition excludes the bulk of people who call themselves fiscally conservative, then it’s clearly not a meaningful or useful one. Fiscal conservatives keep voting these guys into power and talking about how great they are, so I’m going to consider them examples of what fiscal conservatives want.
Well thanks for your input Humpty-Dumpty.
Oh, and by the way, I do support Universal Health Care. I agree that it economically more effective to have everyone paying into a system than to try to go through an actuarial process that tries to put a price on an individual’s health-care requirements based on age, health risks, and God knows how many other factors, especially since the price keeps going up after the typical individual’s income has plateaued, or in the case of many retirees diminished. Thanks for reinforcing my point that fiscal conservatives believe in cost-effectiveness and looking at the long-term picture. You’ll recall that those two principles are why the economic stimulus payments discussed in the OP aren’t “utterly at odds” with the concept of fiscal conservatism.
This is not a market cycle issue, this is an extrinsic thing. it’s more like war than a recession.
In theory a fiscal conservative is in favor of small government and low deficits. It’s not a suicide pact, especially when the President is a Republican.
But in practice, they go for giant tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations, as well as ramping up military spending significantly.
“Fiscal conservatives” in practice are not fiscally responsible. Or to say it another way, because we gave the rich giant tax breaks, now we have to cut welfare, and disease control, and a whole host of other services.
Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives like austerity budgets, which kill people. Draw your conclusion.
I conclude that liberals always want to spend more and always want someone else to pay for it. Do you think Bill Clinton’s welfare reform policies were austerity? They led to record job creation and the last federal budget surpluses the US has had. Liberals in the UK are constantly whining about the austerity measures implemented by David Cameron’s government, and ignoring the fact that he was clamping down on increased spending by Gordon Brown who thought that if he gave enough away, he could buy himself an election. They also ignore the fact that there’s been increased spending every year, preferring morbid soundbites to actual facts. UK National Spending Analysis - Charts Tables History
The current emergency spending measures in the US and the UK are necessary because of the corona virus lockdowns. But many liberals are using them as arguments for permanent increased spending. Coronavirus: Jeremy Corbyn says he was proved 'right' on public spending - BBC News They’re bad arguments. It’s going to be a long while before the corona virus goes away, and a far longer while before the global economy recovers. Long term budget forecasts will need to dramatically revised to support the recovery. But it shouldn’t be viewed as an opportunity for a social economic revolution. The global economy was doing pretty well prior to the corona virus emergency. Getting back to a state of normalcy should be the priority, not trying to invent a new economy whilst in the midst of recovery.
By the way, if you’re referring to the US CDC budget cuts as austerity measures, I agree they were a mistake. Coronavirus: Years of Failures Undercut Trump Administration Response If someone was analysing cost effectiveness of government agencies, the cost/benefit ratio of the agency dedicated to preventing disease outbreaks would be among the highest. Governments should be making long-term decisions based on detailed analysis of what’s effective, not on ideology. Read excerpts from Michael Lewis’s book The Fifth Risk for other examples.
I feel the scattershot way the stimulus packet is being given out cannot be defined as fiscally conservative by any realistic definition. I look at myself and my immediate family. My mother and I are both retired and collecting a pension. My brother and my sister are both working at their regular jobs. None of us have suffered any economic distress due to this medical crisis. But we’re all getting a stimulus check.
I feel that one standard for fiscal conservatism should be that government programs should be targeted to where there is a need or a public good.
Be that as it may, the argument has been that this means-testing would just delay help unnecessarily. Better to just send it out en masse and compensate by raising taxes on the rich next year.
that’s a good approach