Libertarian progressivism distrusts big increases in government spending because that spending is likely to favor the privileged

From Economix. Doesn't this sound like a libertarian Democrat?:

"The Case for Small-Government Egalitarianism

By Edward L. Glaeser

Edward L. Glaeser is an economist at Harvard.

The stimulus debate badly needs the voices of that now-rare breed: Andrew Jackson’s intellectual descendant, the small-government egalitarian.( THE LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRAT )

Today, Franklin Roosevelt’s heirs — big-government liberals eager to right the wrongs of the world by expanding the size of the government — argue against small-government conservatives. The supposedly more progressive side wants the stimulus package to take the form of government spending, while their opponents want bigger tax cuts for businesses and more prosperous Americans.

The missing movement, small-government egalitarianism, would favor tax cuts, but only if they were aimed at ordinary Americans.( I AGREE TO AN EXTENT. THEY WOULD BE MY LARGEST CUTS, BUT CUTS FOR INVESTMENT MAKE SENSE. )

Libertarian progressivism distrusts big increases in government spending because that spending is likely to favor the privileged( THAT'S OUR SYSTEM, YES. ). Was the Interstate highway system such a boon for the urban poor? Has rebuilding New Orleans done much for the displaced and disadvantaged of that city? Small-government egalitarianism suggests that direct transfers of federal money to the less fortunate offer a surer path toward a fairer America.( THAT'S WHY I FAVOR A GUARANTEED INCOME. )

Political divisions have not always pitted big-government egalitarians against small-government conservatives.

At the start of the 19th century, the fans of big government, like Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, saw public projects as a means of strengthening the nation rather than reducing inequities. Their policies, such as tariffs and canals, often enriched the prosperous more than the poor. Conversely, the post-Era of Good Feelings Democratic Party was built around Andrew Jackson’s small-government egalitarianism. Jackson’s fight against the prosperous Philadelphian Nicholas Biddle and the Second Bank of the United States epitomized his desire to reduce privilege by reducing the size of government.

In the 20th century, President Woodrow Wilson campaigned on a “New Freedom,” opposing Teddy Roosevelt’s big-government Progressivism. While Roosevelt wanted the government to manage monopolies, Wilson wanted trust-busting and less protectionism. Wilson perceptively noted the dangers of too much government: “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now?”

Current American political discourse labels people as either anti-government or pro-equality, but wanting to help the poor should not require the abandonment of sensible skepticism about expanding the size of the state. Many of my favorite causes, like fighting land use regulations that make it hard to build affordable housing, aid the poor by reducing the size of government. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I also argued that it would be far better to give generous checks to the poor hurt by the storm than to spend billions rebuilding the city, because those rebuilding efforts would inevitably help connected contractors more than ordinary people.( I AGREE ON BOTH POINTS )

Today, the New Deal’s heirs are vociferously arguing that more( I SAY SOME, BUT LESS. ) of the stimulus package needs to be spent on public works rather than tax cuts. The big-government skeptics point out that the government can’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure projects both wisely and quickly. Good infrastructure spending doesn’t happen on a dime, and applying a “use-it-or-lose-it” rule to speed up spending will lead to a lot of waste. The country could certainly invest more, in both human and physical capital, but that spending should follow the rule that benefits must exceed costs( THIS IS ESSENTIAL. ). Good investments need plenty of time to plan and implement, which pretty much rules them out as good fiscal stimulus. Moreover, since many of these projects will disproportionately benefit the prosperous, many of them can be financed with user charges( FINE ).

Yet skepticism about vast public works does not necessarily lead towards Alf Landon-like antipathy towards stimulus, or towards tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy. A quite plausible alternative, which is partially present in the president-elect’s proposal, is for the fiscal stimulus to primarily take the form of payroll tax cuts for poor and middle-income Americans. Those are, after all, the people who are most likely to spend the money quickly.

Targeted tax aid for poorer Americans would be far more egalitarian than most kinds of infrastructure spending, such as broadband technology. Sensible infrastructure projects wouldn’t disproportionately employ the least-skilled Americans. Forgoing the payroll tax for households earning less than $75,000 a year is surer progressivism than bridge-building.

Economics has little say about how egalitarian society should be. That is a question for moral philosophers and the democratic process( POLITICAL ECONOMY ). However, economics does tell us to choose efficient means of redistribution, and cash transfers almost always involve less waste than the alternatives( I AGREE ). Reducing the payroll tax not only avoids the problems inherent in trying to spend infrastructure money quickly, but it can also directly target aid to the poor, who need help more and will spend the cash more quickly. Now that’s the kind of small-government egalitarianism that would have appealed to Andrew Jackson."

I disagree on two points:
1) I favor a sales tax cut over a payroll tax cut, but I do like the payroll sales tax cut over any other proposed option.
2) I favor tax cuts for investment. The primary problem we are currently fighting is the fear and aversion to risk, which such targeted tax cuts might help.

Otherwise, I'm in general agreement. Too bad he's never heard of a libertarian Democrat.