Like columnist Jim Fossel, I am a fiscal conservative and agree that we, via our governments, should pay for what we spend. However, it is very easy to ask someone else to give up the government benefits and services they receive. My solution is that each of us should only suggest government reductions in benefits and services that we receive individually or as a corporation.

However, my main concern with Mr. Fossel’s June 25 column is that he, like everyone else, is concerned only with who spends the money we earn (our governments vs. corporations and individuals), rather than with how we spend our money.

I’d like to know what percentage of America’s income is spent on infrastructure, education, safety, defense, food, shelter, health, communication, comfort, entertainment (such as vacations, sports, the arts, drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc.) and just plain stuff, among other things. I don’t have these figures, but the percentages were very different for my parents than they are for my children and grandchildren.

From a national health standpoint, isn’t how we spend our money more important than who spends it?

The advantage of having individuals decide on how to spend their money is that they work harder for themselves than they do for the country and therefore create more wealth. Corporations are also good at creating wealth.

The downside is that individual decisions and corporate decisions do not always promote the national interest. I’m thinking of the money individuals spend on drugs, alcohol, junk food, tobacco, pornography, etc. (Today far fewer young people qualify for military service than during World War II.) I’m thinking of the companies that sold oil to Nazi Germany via Cuba during World War II, among other things.

So, are we going to skimp on infrastructure, education, defense, etc., and let our country become second best so that we can indulge ourselves? That is the question nobody is asking.