Does the phrase “fiscally conservative” actually mean anything nowadays?

Well fiscal conservatism really started with liberals in the 1930’s and in principal, isn’t all bad. It’s in the details and differences that problems arise. As in so many things, if you tweak this and add or subtract that it can change something drastically. It’s easy to point fingers at this president or that one, but I’m not going to do that.

Basically fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. (wiki)

They’re against high taxes, excessive gov’t spending and generally act like a responsible adult in the household when everyone else wants to spend on luxury items with impunity.

In case you have not noticed, our military is falling behind when we are facing external threats. We are maintaining the house and not spending on fancy vacations. Unfortunately, fiscal conservatives also advocate deregulation. That’s at odds with keeping the house in order.

The phrase means what it has always meant. But just because someone says they are fiscally conservative doesn’t mean that they actually are fiscally conservative. Shocking as it may be, a lot of politicians lie. Because “fiscal conservative” has become such a part of the conservative brand, however, those who want to run as conservatives have to use the words even if what they support is actually more like populism or something else that isn’t actually fiscal conservatism.

“Military falling behind”

The U.S. has the largest military of any modern country. We waste money on military aircraft that we don’t even end up using.

“Luxury items”.

Education, food stamps, social security and healthcare are not luxury items. These are things many conservatives want to cut.

@rockfan Not true. They want to make these things less expensive. Not to do away with them.

Does fiscally conservative mean anything today? Hmmm. Okay, let’s say you are an adult, have a family you have to support, a home to keep up, etc. How do you spend your money? Do you plan where your money will go? Do you figure out the difference between “have to have” and “nice to have” when it comes to things you spend money on? Or do you live by way of credit cards, spending more than you make each month?

If you use your money in a way that is sustainable and accomplishes what you need, you are fiscally responsible.

Now to the example of the military budget. Let’s look at it in a more personal way. Let’s consider your car. We could really use any large expense you have in your life, but a car is a good example. You have to put fuel into your car, you have to put oil in, you have to put tires on periodically, wiper blades, replace lights, etc. all as part of home ownership. Very few people can get by without a car. You need your car to get to and from a job that helps pay for everything else. It allows you to transport things like groceries you will need. There is a solid reason for needing this car. Is spending money on it fiscally irresponsible? It could be, depending on what you are spending it on. If you always put the most expensive fuel into it when you don’t need to, if you buy racing tires for a family sedan, it you get a custom paint job, etc the you might be showing fiscal irresponsibility. If your car breaks down and needs to be replaced and you replace it with an overpriced luxury sports car that you don’t really need you might be irresponsible. But buying another car is an expense that might come around and what you spend your money on is where fiscal responsibility comes in.

As a conservative, I consider a military important. Especially to a country as large and prosperous as ours. I don’t agree with getting embroiled in every border war in the world, but maintaining a force that can help protect us is a necessary thing. But being a fiscally conservative conservative I do believe we need to be more aggressive about the cost of many things. A hammer should not cost $400 and if you are allowing your suppliers to spread all their operating costs over to you then you are not being smart with your money.

When I was working, I was a public employee for an affluent county that is outside of NYC. We had, for two terms, a fiscally conservative County Executive. When he was elected, he ran on a platform of ‘no tax increases.” Many people thought that’s wonderful, “more money in our pockets! We love that!”

Since public employees’ salaries go up (usually), and expenses generally increase due to inflation, that meant that other things had to be cut. What would be cut? First, the parks department took big cuts to the point where some parks had to be closed due to lack of maintenance. A beautiful county, an affluent county, but parks were closed. One of the public pools had to be closed due to lack of maintenance. Who uses public pools? Not the affluent (the County Exec’s friends), because they probably have their own pool or belong to country clubs so they’re not using public pools. Who suffered? The poor and the middle class. Kids in camp that would use the public pool, now they couldn’t. When something like a public pool remains closed for ten years or so, it takes a lot of money to get it updated and up and running once things are back up, due to snow and frost sinking into the concrete and ruining things, wooden structures like the ticket booths rotting away, plumbing for the pool rotting, all kinds of fun. The golf courses stayed open. Why? Who uses them? Middle class and upper middle class – meaning the County Executive’s friends and business cronies. Hmmmm.

That’s just one example. I could go on.

What’s another example? He cut bus lines. Who takes the bus? Not his affluent friends.
Hmmmm. People got upset. Commuters to NYC got upset. Once elected, it’s hard to stop the whims of a politician especially when he has the backing of his other Republican friends to back him on votes for cuts.

Fiscally conservative is not always best. Being prudent is great, not being a spendthrift is great, but money needs to be spent with a realization that costs do increase – it’s inevitable.

The phrase means something, but no major political force is fiscally conservative. The GOP talks a good game…and never backs it up.

The Democrats openly want to increase spending with no limits, but the GOP only seems to care about it’s fiscal conservatism when a Democrat is in the White House. In other words, it’s less “fiscally conservative” and more “contrarian”.

Under Trump, the GOP spent money hand over first, and no it wasn’t JUST covid. The same under Bush II and Reagan. Far and away the most fiscally conservative recent president was Bill Clinton. And the economy boomed in reaction.

Per the military stuff – my feeling is that as long as we continue to have this bipartisan consensus that the US must be a major leader in global geopolitics (and yes, it is bipartisan despite a few people on either side objecting), we should spend what it takes both to DETER war, but also so that when it goes down, our troops have the best chance to win and win quickly.

As long as the US continues to commit itself to this mission, our spending should match out commitments. I’m definitely sympathetic to the idea that we should give up the ‘global policeman’ role and go back to being a merchant state…but NEITHER political party has a large faction that seriously supports that. And I don’t think the US voter generally wants that.

It means the same thing as it meant 100 years ago.
It is a philosophical approach to economics. laissez-faire economics is not very practical in the long run.

Laissez-faire economics only supports the rich, with no regulation or control.

It means way too much time wasted debating an idea that morphs into ectoplasm to suit partisan political agendas.

There is a big difference between the concept and the actions of people who claim to follow it.