The Immoral Face of Fiscal Conservatism

There is absolutely value, in the abstract, to fiscal conservatism. No one wants to waste money. There is often times absolutely no value though, to the direct results of a fiscal conservative. Often times they speak out against "wasteful spending," and the result is simply pain to the people who use a program that gets cut.

Senator Tom Coburn is leaving the Senate in January, and he has embodied this "fiscal conservatism." His nickname "Doctor No" has been derived from a career of speaking out against any random form of government action he sees fit that day. In many ways, I've always respected that he is one of the more thoughtful guys in a Republican Senate Caucus full of big-business tools. On the other hand, his work often does more harm than good for society.

That was the case in the closing hours of the 113th Congress. Coburn managed to block passage of the "terrorism insurance bill," which helps the government insure our economy against terrorism. I suppose some in Oklahoma might cheer that, but those of us who live near major cities like New York and Philadelphia would love for the Senator to know that we appreciate the giant middle-finger he gave those of us who actually live near common terrorism targets (yes, I know that Oklahoma City was a target of domestic terrorists once in the 90s, but I'll bet New York and Philadelphia are targeted much more often). If that wasn't bad enough, Coburn blocked a bill to help the Veterans Administration target the veterans' suicide epidemic in this nation. That sure is wonderful, coming from a guy who was heavily supportive of sending thousands of Americans to Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 13 years. That's a real profile in courage there.

I'm not against targeting wasteful programs, and if a program works well, but isn't cost-effective, i'm not saying all reforms should be rejected. I'm saying that the onus should fall on the "fiscal conservative" to show how we're going to cut the price tag and provide the same level of services, and help the people who need that program. Coburn left property owners in America's major cities on the hook this week, and he also left our veterans out to dry. He provided no alternative, and no plan to help those effected. Government's job isn't to be as cheap as possible, it's to provide the services to the public that only it can provide, and to do so in the manner that gets the best outcomes. Yes, cutting costs are great, but you have to provide good services too. That's government's job.

It's important we learn from the failures of Tom Coburn as a Senator. As the incoming freshman Republican Senators are calling the Food Stamp program "wasteful," and calling to end it in 2015, the onus should fall on them to propose exactly how we're going to feed those people after they cut the program. These American citizens shouldn't die in the name of some faceless ideology of "fiscal conservatism," just because it sounds good to people who don't even realize that Medicare is a government program half the time. The burden should fall on the cutters, not the providers, to show how our nation will function after their cuts. If not, we're going to leave millions of our fellow citizens behind.