I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The two labels, although they may seem contradictory at times, in reality do not conflict. I am unsatisfied with government spending and consider the public sector to be a failing model. The private sector, in my opinion, is far more efficient at generating revenue, jobs and economic growth. Nevertheless, I am a social liberal. I think that handguns do more bad than good, that the war on drugs is futile and that marriage is a basic human right regardless of sexual orientation. There is no inherent contrast between my social and economic views. As a matter of fact, evidence suggests that many of the progressive ideologies I support can be implemented and enabled by fiscal economic policy.
What Noah Wintman ’16 failed to address in his Commentary article last week, which harshly criticized individuals who identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, were the facts. Food stamp numbers have nearly doubled to 45 million in the last six years, according to the USDA. Over 106 million people are on some form of welfare, up nearly ten million in that same six-year period, according to the U.S. census. In other words, while food stamps and welfare have spent more and more money over decades, poverty levels have done nothing but rise.
Fiscal conservatives do not criticize entitlement programs due to some intrinsic contempt for the poor. Rather, we criticize these programs because they fail to address underlying problems that create a need for government assistance. The public sector may be able to subsidize impoverished individuals in the short term, but it remains incapable of providing financial stability as efficiently or sustainably as the private sector.
In addition to this, I am unsatisfied with the government’s impractical distribution of our wealth. The average garbage man in New York makes nearly $50,000 a year, which is more than the average teacher’s salary anywhere in the United States, according the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is an obvious mismanagement of taxpayer’s money and one of the many insufficient systems which could potentially cause bankruptcy in the private sector, if allowed to continue.
Furthermore, only 3 percent of people over 25 years of age are making minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In other words, minimum wage jobs are often a transient phase in one’s professional career, rarely lasting into adulthood. With hard work, a job that pays more than minimum wage is statistically highly likely, if not almost certain. Raising minimum wage would only put pressure the private sector and force companies to cut jobs elsewhere or move jobs out of the country. The government should focus instead on topics like education reform, which can be used to create an equal playing field for individuals of all socioeconomic backgrounds. 11 percent of workers without a high school diploma earn minimum wage. The government should be allocating funds to reform education and increase the percentage of graduates in order to decrease the number of individuals working for minimum wage. This would, in turn, improve the standard of living for everyone.
Although programs like welfare will always be necessary in order to ensure decent living standards for the 3 percent living on minimum wage, the government should be searching for proactive methods to treat the underlying causes of poverty. Merely throwing money at the disadvantaged will not solve the problem; instead, it just spends money and perpetuates the cycle. To voice this opinion is in no way heartless and does not contradict my opinions on gun control, same sex marriage or any other social topic. If anything, opposition to irresponsible government spending aligns with my liberal social views.
Marginalizing all fiscal conservatives by comparing them to the stereotypically heartless Republicans, or criticizing an entire party for one person’s opposition to welfare or the Affordable Care Act, is a harmful and polarizing act. Instead of focusing on what people have said, or what they can or cannot believe, we should focus on the sovereignty and practicality of our own ideas. I am not some scrofulous capitalist monster for believing in budget cuts. It is not because I lack compassion for the disadvantaged. It is because I believe that true equality, true meritocracy and true socioeconomic mobility can only be achieved through conservative fiscal and monetary policy. My socially liberal objectives can be best achieved with a conservative fiscal policy and more responsible spending.
In response to: http://www.phillipian.net/articles/2013/09/26/socially-liberal-fiscally-ignorant
