Any Conservatives Still Out There Against Deficit Spending?

I just talked to a conservative friend yesterday who is all for the federal government "upgrading our infrastructure". She mentioned that she hoped it would be funded by taking money from other federal spending sources. Of course, that won't happen. It will be just another trillion dollars added to the national debt, and the debt ceiling will be raised enthusiastically by Republicans. We didn't get into the federal intrusion on state and local responsibilities, but Rush Limbaugh also is now not against big federal deficit spending or federal intrusion on state and local functions. Hey, it could be as politically productive as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. And political power is all we're interested in, right?

Since, oh, 1968 I've been against deficit spending except in war time (and maybe for the Louisiana Purchase) and against federal encroachment on state and local responsibilities like education, healthcare, and state and local projects. I haven't changed my position in 48 years, but some of my conservative friends are changing theirs because Republicans are now in charge of federal spending and our economy needs help. It's the old "throw money at a problem" in order to fix it.

Sorry, but local districts, Portland, Multnomah County, the state of Oregon should be responsible for the upkeep of local, city, county and state property in Oregon like roads, bridges, local airports and ports, public schools, public hospitals. There is a place for federal infrastructure in interstate projects, defense projects, post office, and on federally owned property.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . To establish Post Offices and post Roads . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings . . . . (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)

But state and local projects and properties should remain state and local responsibilities. Federal money usually corrupts those local processes. "Free" money tends to do that.

Here's a U.S. debt chart for 1940 to 2025:

Jim Pethoukouis adds:

Still, Kraemer added, the incoming Trump administration’s current policy direction suggests bigger deficits, a larger debt, and an even higher debt-GDP ratio. And although more fiscal stimulus might boost growth for a bit, he likened that approach to igniting a “straw fire” that flames up and burns out quickly. He considers the US economy more or less at potential. So smart policy would focus on boosting the capacity for faster growth through deep reform rather than stimulus.

By the way, the most recent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate finds Trump’s taxing and spending promises would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion to 105% over the next decade as a share of GDP vs. 77% currently. A lot of that comes from the Trump tax plan. Congressional Republicans, though, are promising tax reform will be revenue neutral. And Trump has promised a balanced budget sooner rather than later.

I'm for "deep reform" and against infrastructure "stimulus" which did not work for Franklin Roosevelt or Barack Obama.