Quote Originally Posted by ElectricPaladin View Post
Thanks to [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc"]this awesome video[/URL] - and the explanations of my friend Gavin - I think I finally understand what fiscal conservatism is supposed to mean. It's incredibly refreshing. Allow me to summarize what I've learned:

{lots of stuff}
More or less. A report came out a few weeks ago which added up all the spending on the various social welfare programs in the US and calculated how much actual cash money they would be able to give to each person who was at or below the poverty line...it ended up being around $60,000 per family.

Now, the vast majority of that money never actually makes it into the hands of people who will actually use it to help someone in need or to the people who need it. It gets eaten up by Federal planners with excessive salaries and huge staffs. It gets sucked up by lawyers and other types who manipulate the system to allow them to take a chunk from the pool (ever wonder who pays those Social Security claim lawyers you see the commercials for?). It gets stuck in the hands of State level bureaucrats who use it to buy favor by looking like they are doing something useful but are about as helpful as tits on a boar.

The idea that they could actually go through and do more with less if they got rid of all the various Federal and State level talking heads and left it to the local communities is really at the heart of the objection. I would much rather give $15K a year to a charitable organization like the Salvation Army who helps the needy in their local areas (and because of other volunteers have a much lower overhead) as opposed to having the government take $10K from me and having half of it eaten up by red tape before it actually gets back to helping someone who needs it.

Of course, there is a certain level where the local economy is not able to fully fund the safety net (extremely depressed areas) - in those they do need a bridge of sorts...but it must be clear that it is not unlimited. Throughout the history of our nation you can find boom towns (and the subsequent ghost towns). If a city like Detroit has made itself unattractive for economic activity, then it should be allowed to fail as well. For a temporary impact, State or Federal funds...ideally in the form of an actual, real, funded insurance program as opposed to the current unemployment "insurance" to cover local expenses. For an obviously prolonged problem (Detroit again as a good example) - a bus ticket out of there to an area which has jobs. You don't have to force it upon them - some will want to stay for what ever reason...however, if you stay - you take your future into your own hands, the government will not prop up localities which are working against their own future.

The ability to let a company (and anything else) fail is important for the system to actually work though. When a company is prevented from failing, it removes the need to actually be productive. If a company is forced to make good business decisions, they tend to make decisions which are good for their local community as well.

Just a quick example of that is that right now, I have an installation team in Newark, New Jersey. They have weathered the storm well enough, but the facility that they were sent to do work at is flooded. In order to avoid loosing money on them (will likely be several days before I can fly them back here at roughly $4000 per day) - we have subcontracted them to a company in New York to help get the cellular service back online and a couple of other smaller jobs. Being nimble and able to adapt quickly allows me to make a good business decision and it helps the communities my company is interacting with by providing trained personal who have a lot of experience dealing with the aftermath of hurricanes (we are based in Florida and much of our business is located in the Gulf states). Many of the local technicians are having to deal with their own problems - so having the aid available is good for the region.

However, the government is actually working against my instincts. FEMA allows me to file a claim against the losses if I let them just sit there. If they work and help out, I have to make good business decisions. If they do nothing - the government will pay me.

Regarding a candidate who promotes those ideas - likely in another 10 years or so you will see one of the fiscal conservative-social DILLIGAF groups break out. The center of the electorate is largely already there - there just isn't a strong force to cause it to coalesce into something capable of running a campaign.