It means that you (I) have no inherent right to the earnings of another. That the government should do what is minimally necessary to protect the Constitution and nothing more.

I have yet to find a single government entity or scheme that does what it is suppose to do, or isn't bankrupt.

IMHO, of course.

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?" -- Thomas Sowell

Not spending so much that you will go bankrupt.  Everyone agrees that the government should do some things. The question is how much.

For example, no one thinks people should die in the street from the flu.  The quesion is whether you need a 2 trillion dollar plan to cover 100% of the people or a much, much smaller fix it to cover the 30% without insurance.

A certain percent of debt is okay. I have a mortgage that is what is "traditionally" considered responsible, about 1/3 of my next income.  If my mortgage was 80%, I could not afford to go out, hobby, travel, or do almost anything else.

We are now at the point where over 30% of federal income is just to service the debt.  That means out of every dollar collected, 30 cents is for the debt before we pay for social services, education, military, arts, roads, bridges, etc.  

Hyper inflation hurts EVERYBODY.  The average Joe in Anytown who worked all his live and now owns a 3 bedroom house would see his life savings go up in smoke if we hit hyper inflation.

The fed can't go bankrupt, so that is the alterative if you spend more than you have.

Also, taxing the rich only works until they aren't rich any more.  Then you work your way down.

In Russia, they started with the Romanovs.  The ended up taxing the peasant with two cows when his neighbor had one.  In the end, they had nothing, so that ball point pens and blue jeans were treasured items.

I could go on forever, but here are a few.

1. The city of Los Angeles is the biggest purchasers of goods in L.A.  They buy very little in bulk, and have purchasing agenst that buy at retail.   L.A. could cut its purchasing budget by 20% with no negative impact.

2. Supervisor Mark Thomas just re-did his office for $700,000.  Really.  Every supervisor has a "discretionary fund" to use as he sees fit for official purposes.  When asked about this expense, he said it came out of "his" money.  No. IT IS TAX PAYER MONEY. We entrust it to your discretion for wise use.  Not to buy a fancy couch.

3. The state of California is the largest purchaser of wheel chairs in the state. They do not get any discount.  The new motorized wheel chairs cost as much as some cars.  They don't use their bargaining power at all.

4. The city of New York provides free or discounted subway and bus passes to students. I can see the argument for poor kids, but why should tax payers pay for rich kids to ride for free? The net result is they pissed away so much money, that they will now have to end the subsidy for everyone because they can't afford it.

Final example.  There are 100 ways to pay for college.  The most expensive is for the feds to guarantee tuition.  All of the other ways have many side benefits.  If the fed is the payer of first choice the others will disappear as redundant.  That will leave the worst and most expensive option as the only one.

No deficit spending, especially for a war of choice.

No tax breaks only for the already-wealthy (especially in a deficit situation).

No loopholes allowing most corporations to pay no corporate tax.

No wasting of federal legislators' time and effort to put discriminatory social issues like gay marriage and abortion into federal law.

Not allowing corporate theives to bribe our legislators, write bills, etc.

Realizing that corporations aren't persons, and money isn't speech.

Taxing estates as income.

Taxing income from capital gains, in lieu of actual compensation, as income.

You define "fiscal conservatism" with every liberal position.

Even your first one, you say "especially for a war of choice." Okay. Leaving the "especially" aside as redundant, are you really against any current proposals that may contribute to the deficit?  I don't think so.

Do you really favor cutting out every aspect of health care that might contribute to the deficit? Get honest.

Are you really against any aspect of Cap and Trade that might impact the deficit?

Are you really against every aspect of the stimulus that adds to the deficit?

You are against "corporate theives" bribing legislators.  Yeah. What about non-corporate, like unions and trial attorneys.  Was it Reed or Pelosi that admitted they won't include anything in the health care bill that would piss off trial lawyers, the most liberal lobby around?  There your deficit is, and it isn't "corporate."

Money as speech does not cost the government anything. That is not fiscally conservative or liberal.  Me spending $100 to buy fliers to distribute does not cost the tax payer a dime.  I cannot go to Washington myself.  The ONLY way I have to petition my legislator is to give $20 to a political PAC.

Legislators "time and effort" is the least expensive thing they have.  That is free.  Tell them not to go on jaunts at tax payer expense, and I will believe you.

Within a political context, I would define fiscal conservatism as composed of two parts.

First, realizing that this is a republic rather than a democracy; and that as a result -- no matter WHAT people may "want" -- government is limited to those powers specifically delegated; and that NO PUBLIC MONEY WHATSOEVER should be taxed, allocated or spent on ANYTHING outside of specifically delegated powers.

Second, in carrying out those very limited powers, limiting expenditures to those actually necessary and strictly controlling fraud, nepotism, corruption and abuse that could lead to taxpayer funds being used in a less than wholesome fashion.

I would categorize Washington, Jefferson and Madison as fiscally conservative during their respective presidential tenures.

I would have to concur. There have been no fiscally conservative presidents in my lifetime, as our Federal government has exploded in size since

1. the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and

2. FDR's failed Marxist/Keynesian financial "rescue".

Unfortunately for the citizenry of the United States, we have become emasculated since the Tenth Amendment was in essence rendered moot by the overt actions of liberal SC judges, especially since 1937.

Maintaining a balanced budget except in the time of war

Spending money ONLY on items the constituion allows the Federal Government to be involved in

Downsizing government to a size it really should be

Freezing pay raises for ALL GOVERNMENT employees. Most citizens are just hoping to keep their jobs, fed employees are getting raises.

Here is the perfect example of lack of fiscal conservatism.

California is desperate for water.  It is hurting every industry in the state, particularly agriculture, which feeds the nation and the world.

However, we are 21 billion dollars short in our current budge. Interest on our debt has ruined our credit rating and it starting to take money needed for schools and every other program.

They have a water bond issue coming up, and its passage is crucial to the state.  But they have to toss in bike trails and "watershed education centers."  Even during an emergency, everyone wants his little project tossed in.  It's only a few dozen million, but what the hell. I wanna bike trail.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-me-cap17-2009dec17,0,5941984.column

and that tells you the whole story. California mirrors the Federal Govt. There is a $410B Federal spending bill pending approval to basically operate the govt through the balance of the fiscal year. Guess what? There are all kinds of earmarks in this bill. No different in California. I will give kudos to Evan Byah (D-IN) for publicly criticizing his fellow Democrats. He didn't take any earmarks for his State.

I have been voting NO on about 90% of California's bond issues for the past 20 years, And some of those bonds have been for schools. Of course I am accused of being anti-education when voting NO on school bonds, but when some of these bonds (I live in a small unincorporated community) are for infrastructure improvements, and the schools are only 10 years old, that tells me there was incompetence and lack of oversight by the local officials during the original construction.

Left California at 18, and no plans to ever go back. Couldn't afford it. Speaking of your construction project brings to mind the thought of, how can the Europeans construct a building, church, school, whatever, and it lasts 500-1,000 years, and in this country, 25 years later, and it needs a complete renovation, or torn down and replaced. Guess that's the difference between stone, and drywall.