Politics + Policy

It’s Time To Redefine Fiscal Conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is at the heart of progressive policy ideas

Fiscal conservatism has been tied to racist dog-whistles for several decades. The Republican Party coined the phrase to disguise their attacks on social programs as some form of fiscal responsibility. But there’s nothing responsible about it. Watching corporations be bailed out after creating the Great Recession that cost many of us GenXers our homes and livelihoods and the massive tax breaks the wealthiest Americans received under Trump, it’s obvious that no one is interested in the kind of fiscal conservatism that supports poor and marginalized communities.

As a GenXer, we’ve witnessed tax breaks for the rich so many times many of us have lost count. From President Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics to Wall Street bailouts to subsidizing the richest and most profitable industries in the world, convincing Americans that we can’t afford programs to uplift the poor is becoming much harder to do. For many years to come, we will talk about the costs of the war on terror that provided no tangible results and we will ask why that money wasn’t spent here at home. We should also ask why the U.S. subsidizes the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. If you’re looking for welfare queens, look no further.

We all know that claiming to be a fiscal conservative typically means cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating social programs for the poor to pay for them. Politicians who are against any social programs have used many methods to attack them since their inception. But since the Reagan era, those tactics include throwing the balance sheet so far off that they can point the finger and lay blame on what they refer to as unsustainable programs. As previously mentioned, the reality behind their motivations is far more sinister. As they and their cohorts get richer, the poor are left to suffer and the middle class is left to pay the bills.

“Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, Blacks get hurt worse than whites.…” — Lee Atwater (1981)

According to the highly influential Republican operative and now dead racist Lee Atwater, at the heart of trickle-down policies lies the idea that eliminating social programs disproportionately affects Black communities and other communities of color. However, we can’t deny the negative impacts it has on poor white communities too. It’s a notion no Republican can deny. It is being bolstered every day by many on the political right as they repeat the sentiments of Atwater who referred to poor white people as collateral victims in their political race war.

Atwater was a brutal adviser for Republicans and he mastered the art of wooing racists without sounding overtly racist — using coded language often referred to as dog-whistles. While many can and will argue that the motivations to cut social programs aren’t racially motivated, it’s hard to deny when prominent right-wing political pundits continue to echo the sentiments of old. Ignoring the rhetoric of more prominent conservative influencers is not just intellectually dishonest, but willfully ignorant.

Redefining Fiscal Conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is roughly defined as a political and economic ideology that advocates for low taxes and limiting government debt by minimizing spending. Sounds simple, right? The idea is to ensure a balanced budget by limiting government expansion through debt. However, as we’ve seen far too often, supposed conservatives are quick to add to the debt by reducing taxes without accounting for the loss of revenue. It’s a “do more with less” strategy that has time and again proven unsustainable.

Of the major issues with modern fiscal conservatism is that it passes the financial burden onto future generations. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has argued for decades that tax cuts increase deficits and debt without providing an avenue to pay for them. This leaves the debt created by the corporate and income tax breaks (since the Reagan era) for us, the future generations, to pay for. War, militarized police, and corporate subsidies also increase our deficit and debt so much it’s almost incomprehensible.

In 2012, the CBO published changes in their baseline projections after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts saying, “In January 2001, CBO’s baseline projections showed a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002–2011 period. The actual results have differed from those projections because of subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO’s forecast, and other factors. As a result, the federal government ran deficits from 2002 through 2011. The cumulative deficit over the 10-year period amounted to $6.1 trillion — a swing of $11.7 trillion from the January 2001 projections.”

Aside from the costs of the war on terror, the debt created by Bush’s “fiscal conservatism” is astounding. The deficit, even more so. Fiscal conservatism, in its current iteration, is nothing more than a clever play on words. Remember when I mentioned Lee Atwater earlier? That’s where much of this rhetoric comes from. Despite the term dating back to The New Deal in the 1930s, and despite the language used today dating back just as far, modern-day conservatives use even more deceptive rhetoric, strawmen (immigrants, Black people), and conflicting political ideologies (socialism, communism) to strike fear into largely white, nationalist base.

True fiscal conservatism would embrace maintaining a flourishing tax base and diverting funds from wasteful spending towards programs that benefit every American. Based on the ideology of the typical white nationalist, one would assume this to be their goal too. But because these programs would disproportionately benefit Black communities and communities of color — the most affected by poverty and held down by a system built to work against them — white nationalists would never support such measures. Neither do conservative politicians who traffic in appeasing that base by creating baseless culture wars using divisive rhetoric.

Fiscal Progressivism

Everything the fiscal conservative wants to destroy to pay for tax cuts that benefit the few is what the majority of Americans want to expand upon. Surely, a Republican candidate would want to offer programs to help lift their poor and working-class white voters up, right? Now that we’ve left the theater of two wars behind, Americans should consider reversing corporate tax breaks, greatly reducing subsidies to the most profitable corporations in the world, and taxing the wealthy more appropriately in order to invest in helping progress American society forward.

We should also audit Pentagon. Just saying.

If conservatives were truly intent on tackling the ridiculous cost of healthcare and ensuring every American has access to quality preventive care, they would have adopted the much more cost-effective single-payer proposals. At the current rate, spending for healthcare in the United States reached $3.8 trillion (17.7% of the nation’s GDP) in 2018. Recent research indicates most of the single-payer proposals would reduce healthcare costs in the first year while every proposal boasts long-term cost savings. A policy idea most Americans support.

Similarly, if conservatives were determined to address homelessness, housing the displaced is much cheaper than leaving them on the streets destitute. Cities across the country spend more money trying to tackle homelessness by enacting inhumane policies that cost a substantial amount more than if they would provide support systems that elevate with opportunities for success. Based on extensive research, a small investment can change many lives.

Additionally, one would think the “Don’t Tread on Me” party would be all for demilitarizing the police. After all, oppressive policing is a main driver of extremism despite many officers being members of extremist groups. A militarized police, in theory, would be the enforcers of laws that so many conservative voters fear. All of the things they hate — gun laws, civil mandates, and the invasions of our civil liberties — are all done at the hands of a militarized law enforcement apparatus emboldened by the passage of oppressive legislation under the guise of national security.

Conclusion

Fiscal progressivism is more fiscally conservative than conservatives claim it to be. The vast majority of policy proposals provide a huge return on investment by sustaining the most vulnerable. Removing the fear-mongering rhetoric from the Republican arsenal would make these proposals appealing to a larger portion of the more than 60% of taxpayers who already support them. If politicians were absolute in addressing the needs of the voting public, they would adhere to the demands of the American people. The policy ideas and the data are there.

The collective negative impact of the brand of fiscal conservatism that we’re living through is widespread. While it disproportionately impacts Black and Indigenous communities, they also impact nearly every poor community in America. Yes, even white people. The trick is convincing those largely conservative poor and middle-class white voters that true fiscal conservatism means accounting for our tax dollars and making sure they benefit them too. While we know that many of these policies are also part of the racial justice platform, they just need to know how much it benefits them. That’s what any person cares about, right?

Maybe, in explaining progressive policy ideas that benefit Americans at home, we have to approach white people by describing the advantages for them. Because let’s face it, white people are only worried about what they’re getting and what they perceive to be losing in the fight for racial justice. And the racial justice platform undoubtedly benefits poor and middle-class white people too. Just as previous civil rights movements benefitted them without them doing any work. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Maybe it’s time to switch tactics. Maybe, white allies need to take this approach with their families and friends. In fact, this could be used as part of the arsenal each one of us has to call out hate among people within our proximity. As I always say, I don’t have all the answers and maybe I’m being equally naive as I am being foolish. But I think white people can make tangible differences using different approaches to discussing these important issues. If we want to move forward we need to create ideas. I welcome yours.

What do you think?