Keynesian advocate

Stephen Fincher (R-TN)





On March 8, 2011, Gannett news service reported that the funding for Cates Landing was being targeted by lawmakers looking to slash the federal budget. The same day that report came out, Fincher spoke directly with Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about the funds. The next day, he wrote a follow-up letter seeking assistance in "obligating" the $13 million grant for the port. [...] "We just wanted to make sure that we could do everything possible to create jobs, and this was a part we could play and I did everything I could and we were successful," the congressman declared a few days later to reporters, onlookers and fellow lawmakers, at an event praising the incoming funds. Two days after writing LaHood, Fincher voted for the a Republican House budget that cut billions of dollars, including from many other transportation priorities. His office put out a press release scolding "out of control" and "reckless" federal spending. [...] As for the why: "He believes government does play a role in creating an environment that attracts private investment and job growth. This project does exactly that," [a Fincher spokesperson] said. "It is very important for Tennessee's economy and for the country's economy. So it was absolutely worthwhile." Such an explanation sounds like something out of the mouth of a Keynesian economist, rather than the musings of a congressman who proudly touts his support from the Tea Party movement. But Fincher is hardly alone. A Freedom of Information Act request of the communications between freshmen House members and federal agencies reveals that, in private, GOP lawmakers have pressed for tens of millions of dollars in federal help for their districts, even while decrying federal spending in front of the national press corps. As lawmakers prepare to cut trillions of dollars from the budget as a condition to raising the nation's debt ceiling, the story of the Cates Landing project underscores the dilemma that faces many members of the Republican-run House and the freshmen class in particular.

Perhaps not new or unusual, but another example to throw on the pile: Sam Stein tells the story of a bit of government "pork" that was about to be cut, until freshman GOP congressman Stephen Fincher (R-TN) intervened on behalf of the project (one example among many, in the story:)

Keynesian liberalism! Government socialism! Socialist Keynesianism! Red Dawn! Red Dawn!

There's not really a "dilemma" here, of course, because the mantra of each of these GOP politicians is perfectly consistent: gimme some cash and screw everybody else. But it does show at minimum that even Republicans don't believe Republican economics. Even Michele Bachmann, archconservative extraordinaire, is an eager proponent of Keynesian economics when it comes to actually allocating money for her district.

Fincher adopts here the same Keynesian stance, using many of the same naughty Keynesian words. Note also that they'll all quite happily vote for each others' so-called "pork", so long as it's of the right variety. And then they'll all quite happily put out a press release grumping about out-of-control government spending on the same day, or even in the same hour. We've heard this song before: we know the lyrics by heart.

Let's say it again, to be clear: they don't believe in austerity or deficit reduction. They don't even believe government should really have a "hands off" approach to the economy, as shown by their repeated praise for stimulus money when it comes their way. They just believe in cutting programs for the poor that they've never liked, while continuing to lavish tax breaks, subsidies, and other expensive perks on people they like better.

In other words, conservative business as usual. The difference right now is that the people in charge of the GOP, perhaps feeling especially petulant at a Democrat being voted into the White House (was he even born in this country, or was it all an elaborate decades-long socialist plot?) are willing to scuttle entire state governments or default on U.S. debts and/or shut down the U.S. government if everyone else doesn't agree to also cut aid to the poor and lavish more tax breaks on the rich.

The other difference is that we have pundits now that take crackpots like that seriously. They even call them "bold" and the like!

