Deficit Helping Fiscal Conservatism Take Hold In Odd Places

January 19, 2011 RSS Feed Print

They say necessity is the mother of invention. But the opposite is also true: Luxury is the mother of neglect. That is where much of the Western world finds itself. In our prosperity, we have spent beyond our means and have neglected the difficult budgetary choices we have been confronted with. This has necessitated a return to fiscal conservatism, brought on by a frantic need to escape the consequences of our abandonment of spending restraint.

The impact of debt and deficits is allowing conservatism to take hold in the strangest of places. From coast to coast, cuts in the size of government have become the preferred policy prescription to deal with deficits. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo used his State of the State address to argue for a fundamental transformation of the government. Cuomo argued, "We have to start with an emergency financial plan to stabilize our finances; we need to hold the line, and we need to institute a wage freeze in the State of New York. We need to hold the line on taxes, we need a state spending cap, and we need to close the $10 billion gap without any borrowing." [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the economy.]

In California, new Gov. Jerry Brown used his inaugural address to highlight the difficult and unpopular decisions he will be forced to make. "When dealing with a budget gap in the tens of billions, I must point out that it is far more than waste and inefficiency that we have to take out," Brown said. He went on to list things like healthcare, income assistance, and tax incentives that would likely have to be cut to solve the budget crisis. He admitted it will be a "painful" but an "honest" budget.

European nations are finding themselves compelled towards the same reality. After years of overspending on a generous social welfare system, supported by an enormous public-sector bureaucracy, European governments are turning to austerity. For instance, Germany has announced $95.7 billion in spending cuts over the next four years, Spain cut $18.2 billion from its budget this year, and the U.K. slashed the budgets of government departments by 25 percent across the board. They are not alone; almost all Eurozone governments have presented or passed cuts in government spending in an attempt to get their deficits under control.

Fiscal conservatism is not an option because reality isn’t negotiable. A stripped down government may not be pretty; in fact, it may be downright ugly, but reality often is. [Read more stories about the deficit and national debt.]

In an ideal world, every country would have a social safety net that provided quality housing, generous medical care, and a secure retirement, all at a very reasonable cost to taxpayers. Unfortunately, reality is totally apathetic to our vision for utopia.

Governments have always used times of prosperity to experiment with expanding the size and scope of the welfare state. Do not confuse this with "invention," for it is nothing but a neglect of the fundamental tenets of free market capitalism. Inevitably, bureaucracies grow in close parallel with the size of budget deficits, forcing nations, out of economic necessity, to cut budgets, right-size government, and keep tax rates low. This real world may not be the liberal ideal, but history tells us that the social welfare model is unworkable. Individual initiative has proved more effective than governmental meddling at creating and, more importantly, sustaining prosperity.

That is why our states and other nations, regardless of the political party that leads them, have found themselves at default’s doorstop, forced to deal with their deficits by erasing the government’s most recent attempt to buy prosperity. It is why it will not be long until Washington is forced to admit that the liberal experiment has failed as they march, out of necessity, back towards conservatism.

Tags:
Andrew Cuomo,
deficit and national debt,
New York,
healthcare reform,
California,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The Senate presently has 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 2 Independents; and those coming up for re-election face Tea Party tribunals:

DEMOCRATS

Diane Feinstein in CA

Tom Carper in DE

Bill Nelson in FL

Daniel Akaka in HI

Ben Cardin in MD

Debbie Stabenow* MI

*Claire McCaskill MO

*Jon Tester MT

*Ben Nelson in NE

*Bob Menendez in NJ

*Jeff Bingaham in NM

Kirsten Gillibrand in NY

*Sherrod Brown in OH

*Bob Casey in PA

Sherrod Whitehouse in RI

Jim Webb in VA

Maria Cantwell in WA

*Herb Kohl in WI

INDEPENDENTS

Bernie Sanders in VT

Joe Lieberman in CT

REPUBLICANS

John Kyl in AZ

*Richard Lugar in IN

*Olympia Snowe in ME

Scott Brown in MA

Roger Wicker in MS

John Ensign in NV

Bob Corker in TN

*Kay Bailey Hutchison in TX

*Orrin Hatch in UT

John Barrasso in WY

*Condemned to Political Death Row by Tea Party Tribunals

Jeugenen of MA 7:31PM February 17, 2011

You won't have 100 comments. Sure you knew that when you wrote it. I take those polls here, results turn out liberal of course.

A city in CA just ok'd having sex change added to their insurance. To me it is a elective operation. They say the people are for it and council is for it. City is financially sound, I say be your liberal self. Just don't expect a Federal bail out ever.

America likes to help the needy. We give the aid. Foreign, school, disability, etc.. Liberals and Conservatives here differ. I've read the reason government took over student loans is students are not paying back the loans. The next housing mortgage mess.

S/S is another difference in views. I heard a liberal Congressman say S/S paid more in benefits than individual paid in. True, as far as he went. He provided misinformation. Employer matched our required contribution. The big left out item is interest. The few private S/S in existence pay more than S/S and can continue to family after death or draw lump sum payment. Reason_ Interest and Congress did not steal from their piggy bank.

Most liberals point to Bill Clinton's surplus and how Bush spent it. Truth is Newt forced Bill to finally sign a balanced budget. Surplus was fiction:

"The Myth of the Clinton Surplus "

Reason I bring in this article, is some liberals say government did not spend our S/S monies.

"Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket."

"The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Bill Hedges of MO 9:15PM January 19, 2011

Yes, Bush DID indeed spend more than he took in, and the Repubs of the time - with the exception of McCain - voted for his spending. BUT, "this mess" wasn't his fault alone. The main cuplprit behind the financial meltdown is the Dems pushing the "Affordable Housing" junk mortgages and literally forcing the local banks to make loans that a few years before they would have rejected. Bush tried to reign that in, but Dems resisted (Franks, Pelosi, Waters, etc), claiming that there was no impending crisis.

Never mind the Dems pushing an $800 billion "stimulus" package that wasn't paid for, never mind that it accomplished very little of what they claim.

If the Left was fiscally conservative, they wouldn't be pushing this monstrosity of a healthcare bill, nor would they have continually ignored their own "pay-go" rules.

The repubs have indeed been a part of the overspending scenario in the past, but if you took your blinkers off, you would find that overwhelmingly it is the Left that pushes for spending - especially "feel-good" entitlements - that aren't covered by income.

Junior of DC 8:30PM January 19, 2011

Brandon Greife

Brandon Greife

Brandon Greife is the political director for the College Republican National Committee.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Concordia Ship Disaster

The Costa Concordia luxury cruise ship keeled over after it ran aground off the coast of Italy.

advertisement