Across the Aisle: Money matters

Sam Topp

The more my conservative friend Manny and I talk about recent political issues, the more I come to realize how similar the two “traditional” sides of the political spectrum are.

Our topic this week, economics and regulations, really stood out to me in how reasonable a traditional conservative mindset is compared to what we currently see from the conservative majority in government.

“The word conservative has a certain connotation behind it,” Manny said. “Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, subscribes to economic liberalism.”

What he means is, while the nature of the word conservative implies carefully moving forward on issues, fiscal conservatism is the liberty to be in as much control of personal finances as possible. To promote a personal economy, the country should incentivize people to work with the intention of having buying power for a healthy economy.

While I’m not a business major, I look at the amount of money the U.S. government spends every year with confusion. With a Republican platform that promotes itself as the conservative arm of government, I’ve never understood why politicians talk about reducing the budget while at the same time push for increased military and defense spending.

Including the Obama administration, the U.S. spends more on its military than the next 13 countries combined. The money used on the military could buy a million dollar home for every person on the streets in the U.S. No matter how you view government assistance, it’s a disgrace that we focus on building up our already massive military instead of helping people at home, from veterans to the less fortunate.

Manny agrees on this point, saying there needs to be fairer bidding processes in defense contracting. In a free market, bidding would go to the provider who could accommodate the highest value product available, regardless of previous contracting work. However, as lobbying has becoming increasingly prevalent within politics, contractors are gaining more control and influence over the guidance of political agendas.

Instead, Manny said the money should go toward more immediate uses like infrastructure improvement. The goal should be to put money into externalities, or goods that provide a high societal benefit at a low cost to citizens.

“Fiscal conservatism isn’t about blowing up the budget on huge expenditures and defense,” Manny said. “It’s about making smart, prudent choices and walking out with a fairly balanced budget without crazy deficits.”

Why, then, does it seem like the current Republican party contradicts itself in following what are viewed as traditional conservative values? When I look at the Republican stances, I see citizens up in arms over purely emotional issues while the same people continue to get reelected without actually trying to fix anything.

But if people see left-leaning investments as the ones fueled more by emotion and social cause, then traditional Republican investments should be fueled by logic and careful, precise budgeting.

The inconsistencies of the Republican party can be seen in recent issues regarding immigration and overseas labor.

Manny and I agree we live in a globalized society, and no amount of political maneuvering or regulation will change that. But instead of focusing on careful spending to promote a healthier economy at home, I see the current conservative platform feeding off anger toward overseas jobs as a means of distracting from working toward an actual, long-term solution.

The same can be seen in taxation, something fiscal conservatives would generally like to see reduced to provide more spending money for Americans to boost the economy in a natural way. By providing tax cuts to job creators, trickle-down economics works, in theory, to allow powerful individuals to drive the workforce forward.

I see the same problem as applying something such as pure socialism. On paper, the flow of money goes toward bettering society as a whole. But paper doesn’t take into account the human condition of aspiration and the more realistic portrayal of how often people want to better society around them at their own cost.

I have a better understanding of why people have a problem with government assistance if they don’t see personal benefits. People are upset about the barriers to entry when their finances are cut by taxes, before they even receive their money, for programs they’ll never personally benefit from. Being entirely selfless is an unrealistic worldview even for the most charitable individuals.

But when a fiscally conservative viewpoint can be reasonably defined as economically liberal, perhaps it’s time to reconsider just how similar the two sides are.

The more important topic is figuring out a solution for politicians who’ve lost a grasp of representing their constituents instead of focusing on those who represent their politicians.

—

Sam Topp, ’18, is an associate news editor for The Brown and White. He can be reached at [email protected].