My father-in-law is an interesting guy. And let's leave it at that.

I admire his sense of thrift. He has lived in the same house for nearly 40 years; it's long paid off. When he buys a new vehicle, he pays cash. I'm not sure he has any credit cards — maybe one in case of emergency. He's not a man who comes off as having a whole lot; and by today's suburban standards, maybe he doesn't. But I suspect he has peace of mind — and how many square feet of McMansion is that worth?

The tea partiers talk about freedom, but the reality is that when you're in debt, you're in bondage. We as a society seem to have forgotten that, though the point has been driven home with a vengeance these past few years.

SMART REMARKS: The war on the poor

The focus in recent months has been on systemic debt, government deficits. But I wonder how many of those who complain about federal spending have their own fiscal houses in order. Because the crisis of the past few years is not merely one of government overspending or institutionalized greed; it's a personal crisis. If the big banks or auto industry edged too far out on a limb, then so, too, did the American consumer. And indeed, the recklessness with which the "too big to fail" institutions acted is mirrored in the reckless way we acted; the difference, of course, is that you and I are not too big to fail.

So this then is a time of retrenchment, not just for governments but for individuals, for families. It's personal — but the personal needs to become political.

What I mean by that is, "recovery," as it's commonly defined, is a return to the "normalcy" of the past decade, when wages remained flat but consumers spent more anyway, much of it on credit.

Policymakers don't seem to see any alternative to this. You personally need to spend more to buoy the system; but what if you're unemployed, or wages have been frozen and you can't spend more? In this system it doesn't matter — you must spend anyway because other jobs are dependent upon your willingness to do so.

And so "stimulus" measures put money in your pocket, with the hope that you'll spend it. Billions are poured into the banks, with the idea being that if they're better capitalized, they'll lend more to you; you can take on even more debt to support the system.

Pardon the bluntness, but: Screw that.

If now is a time for national austerity, then certainly it is a time for personal austerity. It is a time for individuals to spend less, cut up their credit cards and buy only the things they can afford. This becomes a political act, a way to protest and maybe ultimately change the system — as well as a rational means of self-preservation.

This ripples down the line, of course. Consumer retrenchment may inflict grievous wounds on our consumer-based economy. But the broader debate that we should be having, but aren't, is, should ours be a consumer-based economy? Is this really sustainable? What if growth ultimately proves to be finite? Where does that leave an economy, a nation, predicated on the idea of more, always?

Everybody wants top-down, big solutions to our nation's big problems. More and more, I'm thinking that the only solutions are the small solutions, personal solutions. The system as it exists can grind on, but you don't have to be part of the system. And if you think the system is destructive, immoral — then you mustn't be.

So withdraw. Keep what money you have in cash or cash equivalents; for God's sake, don't put it in this fool's market. Repudiate the culture of reckless debt.

Because if you don't do it — how in the world can we expect our institutions to?