Rather, I consider fiscal issues MORE important. And in fact, I'd say that social policies should be tailored to fit in the limitations of fiscal issues.
In my perfect (and probably completely impossible) world, there would be no significant social policy, because in my perfect world, social policy is more or less formed by Libertarians.
Basically, in my perfect world, social policy is "do whatever the **** you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else....but then you can start into a discussion of what precisely "hurt someone else" is defined as.
The problem is that when you have programs which involve providing monitary suppot and such to people for various things, some of their activities could in theory be considered as harming someone else.
For example you could in theory consider the poor eating habits of a person on government provided health care to be harming the person who pays for their care (assuming they are also unemployed here).
As with most issues, their is never a simple answer, and IMO most of the "fixes" that politicians propose and implement probably cause more harm than good.
I sometimes have the thought that leaving things the **** alone would be a better solution...only it's too late for that now, since they've been ****ing **** up for decades.