Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', articulated its principles:
...It is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.
In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.
Those who call themselves \"fiscal\" conservatives believe, as you have outlined, that the government has no right to run up large debts... but they very often believe the government can spend whatever it wants so long as it levies the taxes before, rather than after, the fact. In other words, some people use the term \"fiscal conservative\" as cover for \"I want a big government, but we'll keep the budget balanced through high taxes.\" They're sort of wolves in sheeps clothing -- claiming to be fiscally conservative because they want to balance the budget by raising taxes. They've hijacked the term.
Some people have shifted to the term \"economic conservative\" to differentiate themselves. Everyone I've met who uses the term \"economic conservative\" believes the government has no right to run up large debts OR to impose heavy taxes.
In some ways, this whole concept reminds me of early constitutional monarchies, except instead of the king wanting money and Parliament refusing, Parliament/Congress wants money and no one is stopping them.
but they very often believe the government can spend whatever it wants so long as it levies the taxes before, rather than after, the fact. In other words, some people use the term \"fiscal conservative\" as cover for \"I want a big government, but we'll keep the budget balanced through high taxes.\"
And what is wrong with that? It is honest, it gives citizens the ability to choose if they want those expenditures and it creates a society where the economic output of the society generates a group benefit.
Oh yeah I forgot. You Americans have made Big Government the Great Satan of the economic world. Strangely the rest of the world seems to be getting along just fine with a less paranoid attitude.
Clothes may make the man
But all a girl needs is a tan
...some people use the term "fiscal conservative" as cover for "I want a big government, but we'll keep the budget balanced through high taxes."
And what is wrong with that?....
Well one thing is our government has shown it is not very efficient (read:grossly inefficient bordering on criminal) at managing these programs. they even go so far as to have to contract out to private industry to deliver the service and in doing so pay the typical higher-than-market-rate for the service. So if you have doubts that the government should provide the service to begin with, then consider their spending problems, it makes sense to think of the "fiscal conservatives" as people who really have no problem spending recklessly with the mindset that the taxes can always be raised to cover it. We have seen numerous offshore and other loopholes pop up for the wealthy to remove their cash from the revenue stream to avoid paying for the "fiscal conservative" government programs which hurts all of us middle class-without-the-loophole taxpayers.
I'd love to see the Fair Tax be implemented to avoid all that social engineering and corruption that takes place at the hands of the so called conservatives and liberals alike. there is so much there to be had to fund lots of these programs if you cut the waste, corruption and pork out of the current revenue stream that just by changing to the Fair Tax you could have your cake and eat it to at no extra charge!
but they very often believe the government can spend whatever it wants so long as it levies the taxes before, rather than after, the fact. In other words, some people use the term "fiscal conservative" as cover for "I want a big government, but we'll keep the budget balanced through high taxes."
And what is wrong with that?
Something about a "just and proportioned imposition" suggests that, according to the above definition, fiscal conservatism is a small-government idea.
I happen to think big government is a bad idea, but my point in stating what I did in this thread wasn't about the relative merits of big vs small government, only that people should be aware of the issue -- if you're voting for someone because they say they're a "fiscal conservative", know that they might mean either "small-government with low taxes" or "big-government with big enough taxes to match" (which is not what the term originally meant.)
dissent wrote:Have no fear. All the Dems plan to relieve you of more of your hard earned money. Don't worry, you can trust them.
Actually, thats something ALL politicians have in common. Its not limited to one party, or maybe you haven't noticed how fuel prices have skyrocketed ever since dubya took the reigns? (And no, I'm not saying that dubya is ENTIRELY to blame for this.)
dissent wrote:Have no fear. All the Dems plan to relieve you of more of your hard earned money. Don't worry, you can trust them.
Actually, thats something ALL politicians have in common. Its not limited to one party, or maybe you haven't noticed how fuel prices have skyrocketed ever since dubya took the reigns? (And no, I'm not saying that dubya is ENTIRELY to blame for this.)
I suppose a true libertarian wouldn't fit into that stereotype, but I certainly haven't seen any Dems or Repubs proving you wrong. (That a lot of why I'm leaning toward libertarians.) I want to see the federal govt. playing second fiddle to state and local government again, as I believe the founding fathers intended it to be. Thus, I'm very libertarian on the federal level, and not so much on the state and (especially) local level.
