Investment Rarities Incorporated
History |  Q & A  |  Endorsements  |  Portfolios  | Flatware | Gold Coins  |  Silver Coins  |  Contact |  Home

Products

Jim Cook

 

RUNAWAY SOCIAL SYMPATHY

Every once in a while I switch the TV channel from Fox to CNBC to see what the liberals are saying.  After listening awhile I get a deep sense of hopelessness and foreboding for our country.  The most important thing for the left is giving money to people.  They are happy to see the growth of food stamps, disability payments, housing subsidies, free healthcare and all the other welfare benefits.  They utterly fail to see the damage it is doing to the recipients.  Whole cities that once flourished have deteriorated into rotting eyesores populated with shambling hulks of chemically dependent drones.  These people are no longer employable.  They have become incompetent and helpless and the liberals can’t see that it’s their doing.

..Read More »

The Best of Jim Cook Archive

 
Best of William Histed
January 6, 2010
archive print

Many Social Conservatives
Are Not “Fiscal” Conservatives

      Why is it, dear friends, that we keep electing "conservative" politicians as Richard Nixon, the Bushes and others, and we end up with ever bigger and bigger government, even under the Republicans?

     I was one of the youngest elected officials in Ohio at the age of 18.  We had just gone through LBJ and all of his untruths and political tricks and I felt all we needed were to elect some good "conservative"

Republicans To Straighten The Mess Out

   What many of those who have voted for self-proclaimed "conservative Republicans" in the past failed to realize is they were electing SOCIAL conservatives and not FISCAL conservatives.
 
 You see, there are many SOCIAL conservatives who are for traditional views and values, except when it comes to fiscal matters in government.  They often have their own list of government programs they want to fund, even if perhaps a slightly shorter list than the SOCIAL LIBERALS.  There is little consistency among many who call themselves "conservatives," because they don't apply their name tag to FISCAL matters and their sweet tooth is a meddling worldwide military we are not going to be able to afford much longer.

There Are Also Social Liberals Who Are Fiscal Conservatives
 
When we talk about "liberals" or "conservatives," let's understand whether we are talking about our own, or a politician's own SOCIAL position, or their government FISCAL position.
 
Too many times we as a society assume that a social conservative is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is a fiscal liberal.

Actually, some people who call themselves "CONSERVATIVES" believe in more government control over people but often want less government control for themselves.  "Don't tax me, put the tax on the guy underneath the tree," is an old expression.

 If the libertarians---again, no label will ever be perfect---could get their act together in this country, we might go someplace other than the circles we keep going in.    Someone as Congressman Dr. Ron Paul of Texas fits this scenario about as well as anyone in the U.S. government today.  He is about the most CONSISTENT politician we have.

 We keep electing Democrats, then Republicans, and not much changes because very few in either party are overall FISCAL CONSERVATIVES.  There are many SOCIAL liberals and SOCIAL conservatives in the U.S..government, but extremely few FISCAL CONSERVATIVES of either party.
  
This all may seem confusing, but it isn't if you ask one qualifier question.  And this is important. Forget their SOCIAL views, are they FISCAL CONSERVATIVES or FISCAL LIBERALS---don't pay attention to their social views.
 
You don't believe there are SOCIAL LIBERALS who are FISCAL conservatives?  I've had some in my family. They are open to more personal freedoms and less government authority, but they also believe in balanced budgets.  I now some SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES that will bust the budget for the next war someone in Washington says we should fight.

The TYPE O BLOOD is the rarest and most valuable.  It does exist in a few.

 If all of this seems confusing, go back and read it again.  This is why we are confused as a nation.  We keep electing so-called "conservatives" as Bush, and even Reagan, but we keep getting bigger and bigger government, regardless of which party is in office.

But alas and alack, there is a third confusing animal that many haven't figured out yet.  This is the person who is a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE with his or her own personal funds, but suddenly becomes a FISCAL LIBERAL when other peoples' money, namely public taxpayer money is involved.

 I remember a man in my hometown who was at about every City Council meeting asking City Hall to go after about every federal tax grant there is.  He kept  wanting the City to expand services, to add more City employees.
  
But every year, as clock work, he appeared in our County Courthouse and filed papers protesting his home's tax valuation in an attempt to reduce his own real estate taxes to the City.  He was all for spending everyone else's money, but not his own.
                                                      
 Some years back now, I owned an old country newspaper in Ohio. One of the papers in the merger had been owned by President Warren G. Harding's father and a partner.  The paper was 150 years old.
 
 I got two know two fellow Ohio newspaper owners, both well-known politicians. One was Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio, a Republican and fiscal and social conservative. At least he was consistent.  He owned a newspaper in Johnstown, Ohio, I almost purchased when he died suddenly during a campaign for U.S. Senate, but the estate was dragged out
and I bought a newspaper in Florida, instead.   I knew John personally, he was in my home for a neighborhood tea when he ran for the U.S. Senate.
 
 His opponent that year was Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who owned a chain of weeklies in the Cleveland area. Howard was a big liberal, both a big social liberal and a big liberal spender with taxpayers' money.
Yet, in their private business dealings in the newspaper business which I had privy to.....Ashbrook, the "conservative" Republican, was very liberal and generous in how he treated his own newspaper employee.  I knew his employees and they could not speak highly enough of how Ashbrook treated them as employees.

   Metzenbaum, on the other hand, knew how to squeeze a nickel when it was HIS PERSONAL nickel, even if he was a big spender in Washington of other folks' money.  I told myself at the time I wish Metzenbaum spent MY money the way he spent his---he often didn't.  I also knew some of his newspaper employees.  They said he was very, very, very "conservative" with their paychecks.  In other words, he was not a fiscal liberal in his own personal business.
                                       
This is why our U.S. government spending is out of control and it may be terminal.  We want to eat our cake and we want to keep it, too.
  
There are people who have argued with me that George W. Bush was a very good "conservative."  He was not a FISCAL conservative even if he was a social conservative.  A look at the budgets he submitted to Congress proves this point.
  
And as many other "conservatives," he could not see that for the U.S. government to try to run half of the world is a huge government program.
 
Fiscal conservatism, for many self-championed "conservatives," is not applied to anything of a military or war nature.  This is why we never seem to get out of the war business.  We have paid for a long string of wars, threats of wars, supplying wars, taking sides in other nations' wars for nearly a century.  It has helped to get us broke.  It is not just the "SOCIAL" programs busting out at our seams.
 
I like the definition one person said in referring to the various failed "CONSERVATIVE" movements that never held after the sponsors got themselves elected on promises of frugality in government.  He said, "About the only thing these so-called conservatives are "conserving" is the mess the liberal Democrats left them."
  
Until the "SOCIAL" conservatives are serious about becoming "FISCAL" conservatives as well, don't expect the U.S. economy to be saved.  We will have more of the same and the result will be about the same, with or without them.