Recently, I did something I shouldn’t have done, and I’d
like to confess here.
Someone I don’t
know wrote me a nice note about some things I have written and some banking
issues I’m working on (more on this someday).
In the process of the
note, he described himself as moderate Republican, “fiscally conservative and
socially liberal.” This, it turns out, is one of my buttons because it
implies that usually liberals aren’t fiscally conservative.
The idea that liberals are spendthrift is little more than an insult that has stuck over time due to incessant repetition rather than evidence.
It wasn’t liberals who
brought our nation to the brink of financial ruin in 2008.
It wasn’t liberals who
doubled Rhode Island
It wasn’t liberals who
created the fiscal crisis that has bankrupted one Rhode Island
In all of these cases,
it was either soi-disant fiscal conservatives or crony insiders who did all of
it and I, for one, am completely sick of having to feel apologetic about my
policy preferences.
Medicaid is a
money-saving program, as is welfare, early childhood education programs,
environmental protection, and a lot more like those.
The fact is that every
progressive I’ve ever had a policy conversation with should be described as
fiscally conservative, and yet the stereotypes persist, due to lazy reporters
and politicians who benefit by perpetuating it.
So I was pleased to notice this article yesterday
that pointed out the grim reality. You know that Obama spending binge you
read about, when he came charging into office with a mandate and a Democratic
Congress?
Never happened. The article points out that on an
annualized basis, spending under Obama is up about 0.4% per year.
Of course it’s true that the 2009 fiscal year included
Obama’s stimulus package, even though he took office part way through that
year, with the budget already passed. But even if you count the stimulus,
spending is up 1.4% per year under this president. Compare that to 7.3% per
year in Bush’s first term, and 8.1% per year in his second.
The article has
a great bar chart comparing the fiscal records of the last few Presidents.
Because I think he’s unjustly maligned,
I checked out Carter’s
numbers, too, and after adjusting for inflation, spending increased less under
his administration than under Reagan’s.
Why is the
federal deficit such a huge problem? Because of tax and spending
decisions made under George W. Bush.
Why are cities and
towns in Rhode Island
And it wasn’t liberals
who doubled the state’s debt (mostly without voter approval), loaned $75
million to Curt Schilling, and came up with all the different tax cuts for rich
people passed over the past 15 years.
Some liberal members
of the General Assembly cast votes for budgets containing those tax cuts, but
that’s the way this Assembly is run, and many have supported floor amendments
to the budget to overcome those cuts.
Of course the current
Speaker of the House has been known to describe himself as liberal, but the
public record hardly supports that, and I notice he’s stopped doing that, at
least to the reporters whose work I read.
Is there
spending I support that isn’t getting done? Of course there is. I support
actually doing maintenance on our assets — because it’s cheaper than not doing
it.
I support health care
reform — because it’s cheaper.
I support early
childhood education — because it’s cheaper.
I support a cleaner
environment — because it’s cheaper.
I support taxing
enough so our governments don’t require short-term borrowing — because it’s
cheaper. Get the picture?
Obviously this
isn’t the only reason to spend money. Helping support the poor and disabled is
not necessarily cheaper than letting them die on the streets, but bodies lying
about would damage the feng shui of our cities.
Government has a role
in counter-cyclical spending, to keep the economy moving during a downturn. You
actually can make cost-benefit arguments about both of these, but they rest on
shakier numbers, so why not just go with the alleviating human suffering
angle?
Parks and beaches are
cool, historically the arts have never thrived without government patronage,
and I wouldn’t try to justify the Smithsonian on cost/benefit grounds, either.
But overall the
picture of spendthrift liberals is little more than a libel, perpetuated because
fulfills some rough conceptual framework, and because some people imagine that
being fiscally conservative means you don’t have to pay for stuff.
Which is all to
say that I apologize to my correspondent for snapping at him for what was
otherwise a perfectly pleasant note.