No, its just code that the audience recognizes: "fiscally responsible" in US politics means "opposed to social programs", in the same way that "states rights" means "supporting racial discrimination". People often criticize the people embracing those views not delivering on the things that the literal meaning of the words deliver, but the target audience for the message understands what they mean perfectly well, which is why no argument, no matter how well-delivered and well-supported by evidence, directed at the failure to deliver on the literal meaning ever budges support. It's not some kind of magically-strong propaganda that clouds people's minds, it's a message whose meaning is well-understood and arguments directed at the literal meaning are simply misdirected.
It's more than generational at this point, and it's wildly successful from a propaganda standpoint. They're kind of banking on none of their constituents bothering to read the budget bills they pass. Which turns out to be a very good bet when your party is also ideologically opposed to education.
I think this is the plausible deniability they foster, but I don't think this is true. The right has been opposed to public education pretty much since the beginning, even before the DOE. And, of their complaints of the DOE, most of them are legitimately made up. Like the DOE setting curriculum or censoring conservative voices.
Since the beginning, conservatives gravitate towards more... alternative... history. I know I was taught about the War of Northern Aggression in schools. Their issue with public education isn't per se the "education" part, but the "public" part. Unfortunately, an attack on public education is an attack on education itself. We all understand that less public education means less education on average.
I quiet enjoy living in a country with literacy rates in the high 90s, and I'd like it to stay that way.
