"The most significant threat to our national security is our debt," Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, August 27, 2010


Thursday, April 22, 2010

Fiscal Conservative

TheFundamentals has noticed that the term “fiscal conservative” is becoming a very common self designated description. Even members of congress, some individuals who have served many terms, describe themselves as “fiscal conservatives.” How can this be? What is a fiscal conservative?

To answer this question, TheFundamentals (TF) interviewed many people and finally located one individual who displayed to us that not only are they a “fiscal conservative” but that they can prove it and that they have been one for almost 60 years. We asked this Fiscal Conservative (FC) a few questions:

TF: What do you mean when you say you are a fiscal conservative?

FC: It means the following:

• Live within your means and pay your debts

• Save for a rainy day

• Meet your needs and prioritize your wants

• Spend others money as you would spend your own

• Help others who have needs and are unable to meet them

TF: What do you mean by “live within your means and pay your debts?”

FC: Balance your budget; outgo equals inflow. If expenses rise beyond revenue; cut back or earn more. Only borrow for long term needs and make certain that your debt can be repaid as the terms require.

TF: What do you mean by “save for a rainy day?”

FC: Always put something aside. At least 5% and, when you can, 10% of your income.

TF: What do you mean by “meet your needs and prioritize your wants?”

FC: We can’t have everything. Needs are food clothing and shelter and, in today’s world, education, health care and transportation. Wants are all else. Cell phones, cable TV and entertainment are not needs. Learn to do without things. Sacrifice and frugality are good ideas.

TF: What do you mean by “spend others money as you would spend your own?”

FC: Most of us have an opportunity at one time or another to have access to “others money.” It may be a family member or a neighbor. It may be on a church committee or other charitable activity; it may be going to the grocery store for a house bound person or it may be as an employee or even a higher up position in a company or a union or a government entity. We have an obligation to be very careful when spending someone else’s money. The basic fundamental that we are talking about here is TRUST. We must be cautious and conservative and seek good value in return for a purchase decision. It also means that objectives must be set and results measured. Last, it means that wastefulness must be avoided at all costs.

TF: What do you mean by “help others who have needs and are unable to meet them?”

FC: We are responsible for helping others; not government. Government is not a charitable organization. Please read the USConstitution. There is no reference to charity in the document. Helping others is what we do after we meet our own needs and before we prioritize our wants. First we take care of those for whom we are responsible. Then we help others. Charity is the church, the neighborhood group, the food kitchen and the unheralded assistance to someone in need.

TF: Do you live by these concepts?

FC: Every day of my life.

TF: Do you know other fiscal conservatives?

FC: Yes, many.

TF: Can you name a Fiscal Conservative in the national government?

TF: Hello? (It seems as if FC is either laughing or having some form of uncontrolled fit.)

(Long pause)

FC: Sorry, I thought you asked me if there were any fiscal conservatives in government.

TF: Well, they say they are fiscal conservatives, don’t they?

FC: Here’s a basic fundamental that TheFundamentals seems to have forgotten – Actions speak louder than words!

TF: Thank you for the reminder and thank you for explaining the true meaning of fiscal conservatism.

1 comment:

NDDillon said...

I don't think conservative is a code word for heartless. I do not agree that personal charity is either inappropriate nor to be discouraged. If charity is for the church, the neighborhood group, the food kitchen (taking aside the undefined unheralded assistance to someone in need), then it is not my problem.

Moreover, the idea of a blanket statement that government is only for the haves is foolish and shortsighted. The idea of people starving due to no support is neither economically nor socially prudent. Again, it is not my problem.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 seemed to strike a reasonable balance. People in serious short term need receive assistance, but it is by definition short term. Further, in a time of grave unemployment, providing no benefits, such as unemployment assistance, will prolong the recession. These people are classic providers. They will spend what they receive and that money will go into the economy to spur a recovery. The idea that these unemployed people are reprobates is unthinkable.