Back to SoWal Lounge

Fiscal Conservative-In Name Only

Beach Fanatic
1,550 views1
Yesterday's column
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My friend Lane Rees lost his job as Walton County commissioner because, believe or not, he was not sufficiently Republican, merely a Republican In Name Only (RINO).

It is difficult for me to imagine Lane being insufficiently Republican. There is a new creature stirring around ? a fiscal conservative ... in name only (FCINO), or ?finko.? If you talk the fiscally conservative talk but don?t walk the walk, you might be a finko. I?m not sure if it is part of a Floridian?s DNA or if there is something in the water, but we Floridians have historically, habitually and quite brazenly petitioned the federal government for money. Within a few months of Florida?s statehood, one of our senators cajoled the federal government for an Everglades drainage earmark. That?s how Floridians roll. We aim high, but relying on government pork-barrel projects is not fiscally conservative.

You can find a couple of finkos at the Bay County Chamber of Commerce, where they are lobbying to keep the F-22 Raptor program at Tyndall. However, the F-22 has not flown a single sortie in the skies of Afghanistan or Iraq. Furthermore, the Air Force has no plans to use the plane in either theater. According to the conservative (not in name only) Cato Institute, ?politics, not need? (i.e. pork) is why we have a plane we don?t use.

Contrary to rhetoric, being a fiscal conservative doesn?t mean you never, ever raise taxes. For instance, when Social Security was facing a financial crisis during Ronald Reagan?s first term, the conservative icon hiked Social Security taxes. Being a fiscal conservative means being prudent fiscally, but finkos can?t go there. Both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush took politically unpopular stances primarily by raising taxes but coupled their tax increases with strict spending controls and reductions in the growth of entitlements. Democrats like to claim the budget surplus was Bill Clinton?s legacy, but Bush 41?s policies were instrumental also. Unfortunately, when these spending controls expired in 2002, first-generation finkos took control, and the budget surplus disappeared.

A finko harps on government deficits (or Walton County spending) but regularly carries a credit card balance. Financing your lifestyle on your credit card is popular, but you cannot expect the government to live within its means if you don?t do likewise. President Obama?s budget is running huge deficits and must be reduced. Structural federal budget deficits are a critical problem, but if you don?t want to be a finko, then get your own house in order. Look at it this way: 30-year Treasury debt is being sold around 5 percent while credit cards levy interest up to six times as high. It is estimated that 40 percent of Americans regularly carry credit card balances. That is not fiscally prudent. Just because you are liberal doesn?t mean that you can?t be a fiscal conservative. Recently I crossed paths with my old friend Christian at the Seaside Farmer?s Market. We hadn?t talked in years. He told me that he had paid off his debts and was saving money. He voted for Obama, but he is a fiscal conservative.

It doesn?t matter how you vote; true fiscal conservatives spend less than they earn. If you are not saving sufficiently for your retirement, you could be a finko. For way too long, we have been fed pabulum and patted on the head by politicians. The fiscal problems facing Americans are neither conservative nor liberal; they are American. We need fiscal prudence, and it needs to begin at home.

Buz Livingston is a certified financial planner. He operates Livingston Financial Planning Inc. focusing on hourly financial planning and investment management. Contact him directly at 850-267-1068 or at buz@LivingstonFinancial.net  .



BUZ LIVINGSTON
Just Plain Talk

Replies

38
ShallowsNole avatar
Beach Fanatic
#2
I think there are a lot of people who this column will hit home for.

Embarrassingly, one of them stares back at me when I look in the mirror. :blush:
Teresa avatar
SoWal Guide
#3
Thanks Buz! Love reading your column. Thanks for sharing with us on SoWal.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#4
Great post. Lately I have become dissatisfied with the label "fiscal conservative". It has too many political undertones and Republicans seem to think the term can only apply to them. Fact is it doesn't apply to either major poitical party based on the actions of our elected officials on all sides.

I prefer the term fiscally responsible...
Beach Fanatic
#5
Great post. Lately I have become dissatisfied with the label "fiscal conservative". It has too many political undertones and Republicans seem to think the term can only apply to them. Fact is it doesn't apply to either major poitical party based on the actions of our elected officials on all sides.

I prefer the term fiscally responsible...


Fiscal Conservative and fiscally responsible are the same things, but neither political party has very many of them in office. :bang:
Matt J avatar
SWGB
#6
It seems to me that fiscal conservative's just want to cut spending and taxing until there is none, even at the detriment of the nation, economy, and anything else that gets in the way of their agenda. Fiscally responsible folks want to cut spending and lower taxes, but understand that at times this has to be curtailed to prevent further disaster.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#7
Idlewind, there are many terms whose meanings have evolved in recent years. Examples include elite, socialism, maverick, democrat, republican and fiscal conserative. If you are labeled those things today it doesn't mean what it did 10 years ago. There are many new connotations.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#8
One can be for a single payer healthcare system and be fiscally responsible. One can oppose invading soverign nations and tax cuts and still be fiscally responsible.
Beach Fanatic
#9
It seems to me that fiscal conservative's just want to cut spending and taxing until there is none, even at the detriment of the nation, economy, and anything else that gets in the way of their agenda. Fiscally responsible folks want to cut spending and lower taxes, but understand that at times this has to be curtailed to prevent further disaster.


Someone who wants to toally cut out spending and taxes is an idiot, not a fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives want to define the functions of government in a logical fashion and fund those objectives as fairly as possible. They also believe that those decisions are best made as close to the people as possible. The local government cannot decide national security issues ( see valp mayor) but the federal government cannot decide what is the best education for our children.
Beach Fanatic
#10
One can be for a single payer healthcare system and be fiscally responsible. One can oppose invading soverign nations and tax cuts and still be fiscally responsible.


I cannot see how a single payer healthcare system can ever be fiscally responsible. See social security and medicare for examples.
Teresa avatar
SoWal Guide
#11
It seems to me that fiscal conservative's just want to cut spending and taxing until there is none, even at the detriment of the nation, economy, and anything else that gets in the way of their agenda. Fiscally responsible folks want to cut spending and lower taxes, but understand that at times this has to be curtailed to prevent further disaster.

yes. and it is what Buzz's entire point is in his article. in addition, he pointed out that there are many who consider themselves "fiscally conservative" but who spend way more than they make so they are not really what they claim and/or they do not understand the inconsistency in their claim v. reality. I can think of quite a few people who fit into this category.
Beach Fanatic
#12
yes. and it is what Buzz's entire point is in his article. in addition, he pointed out that there are many who consider themselves "fiscally conservative" but who spend way more than they make so they are not really what they claim and/or they do not understand the inconsistency in their claim v. reality. I can think of quite a few people who fit into this category.


While I agree with his premise to a point, public policy is far differnent than private finances. The first reason being that a private citizen cannot possibily run up the debt ratio that the federal government has.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#13
Idlewind, your same logic could be applied to anything we spend money on when we are in the red.
Beach Fanatic
#14
Idlewind, your same logic could be applied to anything we spend money on when we are in the red.


Exactly, which is why we must be very careful about expenditures until we get our fiscal house in order.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#15
One can be for a single payer healthcare system and be fiscally responsible. One can oppose invading soverign nations and tax cuts and still be fiscally responsible.

That's really the only way you can make government funded healthcare work, and I'd agree, it can be fiscally responsible. Which is why I'm so glad the current health bill is dead. Government subsidy of any private sector business is fiscally irresponsible. Just look at healthcare and education for proof.

Fiscal responsibility as a sole litmus test isn't enough though, you must also look at the methods used to reach it. A fiscal conservative would argue the reason why costs in these systems are sky rocketing is due mostly to government involvement.

Edited

Matt J avatar
SWGB
#16
While I agree with his premise to a point, public policy is far differnent than private finances. The first reason being that a private citizen cannot possibily run up the debt ratio that the federal government has.

Yet if a politician cheats on his wife he's unfit to serve since he doesn't have proper "family values". How is it that conservatives and republicans alike get to choose what portions of someone's private life make them unfit to serve, it seems to change on a daily basis. When Clinton had his affair it was reason to impeach him, but when republicans recently started popping up with illegitimate children, hookers, and even international mistresses it suddenly becomes a personal private matter?

The point is that I find it very hard to believe that if someone is struggling with their own personal finances they would somehow have the knowledge to fix even a county mess.

Of course we seperate those two otherwise Scott Brannon wouldn't have gotten re-elected.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#17
Yet if a politician cheats on his wife he's unfit to serve since he doesn't have proper "family values". How is it that conservatives and republicans alike get to choose what portions of someone's private life make them unfit to serve, it seems to change on a daily basis. When Clinton had his affair it was reason to impeach him, but when republicans recently started popping up with illegitimate children, hookers, and even international mistresses it suddenly becomes a personal private matter?

The point is that I find it very hard to believe that if someone is struggling with their own personal finances they would somehow have the knowledge to fix even a county mess.

Of course we seperate those two otherwise Scott Brannon wouldn't have gotten re-elected.

Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury and obstruction. Those are both impeachable offenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#19
If Clinton had been a conservative he would have been driven from office. But I really don't care what they do in private as long as it is legal. I know alot of people who would never tap an intern who I don't want in charge of anything. And alot of morally challenged ones privately who would do a good job in government. On reason good people don't run for office is the incessent prying into private affairs. ( no pun intended)
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#20
Why don't you reread my post and answer the questions. You are clearly an attorney as your responses reek of it.

I could care less about what politicians do in their own private time, so long as it's legal and they don't lie about in a court of law. I also wouldn't vote for or have faith in a public servant who couldn't balance their checkbook or pay their taxes properly. (Clearly Obama doesn't see things this way though. :cool:)

Edited

30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#21
I'm also pretty sure I'd vote against someone who cheated on their spouse. If a politician is amicably divorced due to incompatibility however, it's a non-issue. The whole "family values" thing.. if someone has been married, raised good kids, and stayed faithful, well that's certainly a plus in their favor.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#22
I'm under the impression that for many (if not most elections) each party's candidate has at one time cheated on their spouse. Sad but likely true.
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#23
I think it is a very valid point that someone who cannot get/keep their own finances in order is NOT the person we want controlling even larger sums and a government checkbook.

Finance 101 - don't spend more than you earn/have in the bank. :roll:
Beach FanaticAuthor
#24
Exactly, which is why we must be very careful about expenditures until we get our fiscal house in order.

If this were an examination you could get partial credit, whether we like it or not, there is NO way to get our fiscal house in order without dealing with the growth of entitlements and without increasing taxes.

Any politician that tells you something else is peeing on your leg and telling you that it is raining.

I am on the first fifty pages of "Choosing our Nation's Fiscal Future" a fantastic analysis and warning of our financial dilemma.

Download it for free at www.nap.edu I bought my copy from Amazon.
I like being able to highlight the good points...and there are a lot of them.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#25
buzz, one of your best columns ever! you have a way of using just plain 'ol common sense to make a point. how refreshing!
Banned
#26
I could care less about what politicians do in their own private time, so long as it's legal and they don't lie about in a court of law. I also wouldn't vote for or have faith in a public servant who couldn't balance their checkbook or pay their taxes properly. (Clearly Obama doesn't see things this way though. :cool:)

When did extra marital affairs become illegal? The answer is only when asked about them. I realize many christians would like to make all ten of the commandments law but it ain't gonna happen. Henry Hyde was screwing the wife of one his constituents but explained it away during the Clinton impeachment as a "youthful indiscretion". Newt Gingrich is another cheater in a class all by himself. Only angry old white Republicans would try to make a man feel guilty about a BJ.

Edited

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts