Jessica Riedl: The Last Fiscal Conservative

Some background information on economics analyst Jessica Riedl.

"Jessica Riedl (formerly Brian Riedl) is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, focusing on budget, tax, and economic policy. Previously, she worked for six years as chief economist to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and as staff director of the U.S. Senate Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth. Before that, Riedl spent a decade as the Heritage Foundation’s lead research fellow on federal budget and spending policy.

She also served as a director of budget and spending policy for Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign and was the lead architect of the 10-year deficit-reduction plan for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

A prolific researcher, Riedl has published nearly 600 studies and articles since 2001 on federal spending, taxes, deficits, and economic policy, and has assisted in the writing of several New York Times best-selling books. She often testifies before Congress, works directly with congressional leaders, and briefs top-tier presidential candidates on fiscal and economic policy. Additionally, Riedl is frequently sought out nationally as a popular public speaker on unsustainable federal spending and deficit trends.

Riedl’s op-eds are regularly published in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Post, CNN.com, Vox, The Daily Beast, The Dispatch, and other publications. Her economic policy expertise is also cited hundreds of times annually by reporters and columnists in top national newspapers and magazines. Riedl regularly discusses economic policy on all major TV networks, as well as high-profile radio programs and podcasts.

Washingtonian Magazine named Riedl one of the 500 most influential policy professionals in Washington D.C.—including one of the 26 most influential within economic policy—in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

Riedl holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin and a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University.

Source:Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jessica Riedl.

From the Manhattan Institute

Never-Trump Conservative Charlie Sykes interviewing Jessica Riedl on his podcast: 

"Jessica Reidl: The Last Fiscal Conservative" 

Source:To The Contrary With Charlie Sykes & Jessica Riedl.

From Charlie Sykes

I think the quote "A government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take it away... (regardless of who originally made that statement) is really app here. And I think President Gerald Ford when he became President in 1974 (for reasons that anyone who has strong grasp of American history already knows) put it really well when he said: 

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

From the Gerald R. Ford Library & Museum

This is something Democrats when they're back in power and have complete power again (which they will, perhaps in just a few years) really need to think about. But this is about the MAGA government right now, which is what I'll focus on today. 

British historian brilliantly once said that: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". So what does that mean? 

I means when one person or group in power think that they're untouchable, they start doing bad and unpopular things that they wouldn't normally do because they believe that there is no one there to hold them accountable. We've seen this even with dictatorships around the world that collapse because the people there have finally had enough and are finally fed up (to put it lightly) with the authoritarianism, the corruption, especially the poverty when their lives are a real struggle and the people with close ties to the national regime are doing so well. The recent example of this is with Syria with the fall of the Assad Regime. 

America has never had a dictatorship, (at least not yet) but to put the Acton quote in an American political sense... you go back just 32 years ago (and if you are a Gen-Xer or older, that's not very far back) Democrats had just been reelected in the House and Senate and Bill Clinton is now President of the United States. 

The last time there was a Republican Senate before 1995,, was 1985-86, the last time there was a Republican House of Representatives before 1995, was 1953-54. So Democrats had a lot of power in Washington, even with 12 years (1981-93) of Republican presidential rule, for the previous 38 years. 

To make a long story shorter... you had Democratic representatives and senators who thought they would never ever be ranking minority members, let alone ever have to worry about losing their Senate or House seat, until election night 1994. In 1994, Republicans win 52 seats in the House, 10 in the Senate and take back Congress for the 1st time since 1953. 

From 1994, go up 10 years later, George W. Bush is reelected President, Republicans not only hold the House, but add a few seats, Republicans had 4 seats to their Senate majority, and Bush Republican strategist Karl Rove is talking about a permanent Republican majority. Because of all the gerrymandering that Republicans states were doing in the 1990s and 2000s to retain their House majority indefinitely. And a lot of the Senate seats that were up for reelection in 2006, were red states that G.W. Bush won easily twice. 2 years later, Democrats win back the House with 30 seats and 6 in the Senate, to give them back the Congress for the first time since 1993-94. 

And of course with 2010, Republicans win 62 seats in the House and a bunch of state legislatures and governorships... 8 years later, Democrats win 40 seats in the House, when the mainstream media thought they might just win back the majority, but it would be tight and they win a bunch of governorships and legislatures as well. 

My point here (and yes, I have a point) government power in any functioning democracy, especially in a developed country, is never permanent. And just because the voters decide to let one party have both the executive and total control of the legislature... that's not some gift from the voters that the party can do whatever the hell it wants to with. It's just an opportunity for that party to govern, to even govern by themselves, but not to govern past the mandate that was given to them by the voters and not to govern irresponsibly, especially thinking that they'll be in power indefinitely. And this is 1 lesson that both Republicans and Democrats never seem to learn when they're in power. 

Somehow I feel the need to talk about "Jessica Riedl: The Las Fiscal Conservative". (Perhaps that's because that's the title of this post and I haven't talked about her, yet) This is going to sound really strange... but I actually disagree with the title of my post. Actually, it's Charlie Sykes title. But we can discuss technicalities later. (If we both have gone days without sleeping) 

Jessica Rield is not "The Last Fiscal Conservative". I've never met the woman, only know about her because I saw her on Margaret Hoover's PBS Firing Line show 2-3 weeks ago. And from that interview and listening her talk to Charlie Sykes and reading up on her a little bit, I would grant that she's a "fiscal conservative". Whatever that means anymore, I'm not sure. 

But again go back in fairly recent political history, when Republicans control both the executive and Congress, "fiscal conservatism", is like fish without water: it dies in front of your eyes. (Does that rhyme?) "Fiscal conservatism", is almost nothing more than a political tool that Republicans use against Democrats, when there's a Democratic President, especially with a Democratic Congress as well. 

But when Republicans are back in absolute power, again "fiscal conservatism", is like fish without water. And to use an ethnic joke: when Republicans have complete power at the Federal level, they borrow and spend like drunken Irish sailors, who have like a 2 week leave. And they leave their bills and mess for the rest of the country to pay and to clean up. And the same damn thing is happening once again in 2025, even with the high interest rates and rising inflation in the economy. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.