By Selwyn Duke

There’s a type of political creature known as a fiscal conservative (FC).  This sort of animal doesn’t believe that we should tax and spend like a liberal nor does he believe that we should hew to traditional social values like a "paleo-conservative" (I’m not fond of some of these labels).  For instance, an FC would be pro-abortion and might say that we should allow for the re-defining of marriage.

Now, I’m sure that some FCs read my work, and many are good people.  Nevertheless, I have a problem with the group in general.

A case in point is tradition-terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger.  In 2003 he campaigned as an FC and wrested control of Cal-ee-fornia from the recalled Gray Davis.  Davis had become very unpopular, partially because he had failed to balance the state’s budget, something required under Ca. law.  Schwarzenegger vowed to "tear up the state’s credit card."

Instead, he’s tearing up the state’s solvency.

California is facing a budget shortfall, as the physical fiscal man and his enablers in the legislature have spent $10.2 billion more than they have received in taxes and fees.  Consequently, Ca. may face the prospect of a tax increase, courtesy of fiscal conservatism.

If the problem with liberals is that they believe in taxing and spending, the problem with FCs is that they believe in not taxing and spending.  It just doesn’t add up.

Many will counter by saying that while FCs are liberal on social issues, it doesn’t mean they believe in spending on social programs.  On paper this is true, but in practice their leftist bent on social issues always seems to translate into support for government action designed to further what the left defines as social good.  In simple terms this means the government bulks up like an Austrian on steroids.

As to this, Schwarzenegger’s $145 billion budget proposal contains items such as his $14 billion health care reform plan.  Hey, if that alone were excised, Ca. would have a budget surplus.

"But," protest the FCs, "everything was fine until the economy tanked; revenues were slated to be far higher than they’ve turned out to be.  We don’t have a crystal ball; we couldn’t foresee this collapse."

But they didn’t have to foresee it, just consider it. 

What frustrates me is the juvenile nature of this type of budget management.  Before I was 10 years old I knew the sage advice, "Save for a rainy day." My parents would tell me, "Don’t let that money burn a hole in your pocket."   Why would any sane person assume that future revenues can be predicted any better than the weather? 

I would say that this is a type of arrogance, but really it’s irresponsibility, the type that causes one to accept dubious predictions out of convenience.  Is it any surprise that the kind of people who budget based on theoretical revenues also want to make policy based on theoretical climate change?

The truth is that any mature individual understands the importance of preparing for lean times.  I know 12-year-olds who could balance a budget better than these folks.   

Writing about this, I also think of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  Although I’m sure he would characterize himself as a fiscal conservative, he just proposed a "carbon tax" (to encourage the cutting of gaseous emissions) at a climate summit sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.  In his advocacy of this idea, Bloomberg praised cities that had solved problems through local action, making the case that if they can accomplish so much, the Federal Government can as well.

What this means is that Bloomberg has a poor grasp of governnance and cares nothing about that on which our nation was founded.  Mr. Mayor, haven’t you ever heard of the principle of "subsidiarity"?  (It states that the smallest unit of society that can perform a given task should be the one to do it.)  Our Founding Fathers seemed to, which is why they created a constitution that limits federal power and implicitly prescribes local action.  So, when speaking of cities’ allegedly great accomplishments, don’t imply that the Feds failure to follow suit is an abdication of responsibility.  No, Mr. Mayor, your failure to seek the Truth as it relates to the role of government is an abdication of your responsibility.

Another thing my parents told me is, "Money doesn’t grow on trees."  We dream if we think that we can exercise long-term fiscal restraint without keeping government small.  And I have to laugh; Bloomberg says that the revenues raised through the carbon tax would allow for the lowering of other taxes, such as the payroll tax.  The heck it would.

But, hey, I have an idea.  If we want to eliminate FCs in government, we should tax the hot air they spew.