The legislature has left the building. Let the chorus of “Say wha….???”
Yes, once again our “conservative” legislature, the one that is so dead set against big government and its interference in our lives, has managed to redefine the term “fiscal responsibility”.
According to these fine ladies and gentlemen, since we have plenty of money this year, and since they’ve put some aside into a savings account, the rest is fair game. All of which is true until you smack your face up against the huge deficit looming in the state retirement program.
While some might feel they can outwait the elderly in the hope they will die before the program sinks inexorably into the red, this is probably not a politically astute thought to utter in public. Which leaves me wondering how you declare a surplus when you have a huge debt.
I know the federal government does it all the time. When George Bush took office, we supposedly had a surplus that he wasted on his war of choice. But the reality is that George Bush no more came to office with a government surplus than he came to office with a clue.
You see, out here in the real world, when you have some money left over from your paycheck after paying your monthly bills, you can’t say you have a surplus unless all your debt is paid off. At least, that’s the way my accountant insists I view my finances.
But apparently this is not the way political math is done. George Bush is accused of wasting a surplus that was only a surplus if you ignored the gabillion dollars owed to the social security program to keep it viable. And our lovely state legislators could only claim to fund their drunken spending spree with “surplus” if they ignore the fact that the state retirement program is going broke.
This would not stick in my craw half as much if the people who created our operating and capital budgets had run as liberals who never knew a government program they didn’t like and wouldn’t fund. But winning candidates in Alaska tend to run almost exclusively on the platform of fiscal responsibility and small government. Then they get to Juneau and act like alcoholics locked in a wine cellar. By the time they emerge, they are drunk with money yet still claiming they were fiscally responsible lawmakers who only funded those programs absolutely critical to their region. Substitute re-election for region in that sentence and you are much closer to the truth.
In actual fact, the only thing that separates these supposed fiscal conservatives from their openly liberal opponents is the closet in which they hide their real propensities. At least liberals have the guts to say out loud that they plan to spend your money. At least liberals openly admit they think government is the answer to some problems.
But conservatives run on platforms that seem to be the polar opposite of what they actually do when they get elected.
I’m the first to admit that I try my best to pretend that I have a surplus when some unexpected money comes my way, no matter what my credit card balance might be. And sometimes I can convince myself that I deserve to spend it and not pay off my debt. But sooner or later my parents start inhabiting my dreams where once only Nathan Fillion dwelled. And instead of having a lovely make-out session with him on Serenity, I’m staring at two very angry people who make it clear that they expect that balance to be paid off if I ever expect to see Nathan at night again.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem in using tax dollars to help stimulate the economy and create jobs while meeting some much needed infrastructure needs. What I find objectionable is the pious blather of conservatives who rant and rave about liberal spending plans as though they were created in the innermost circle of hell to waste taxpayers’ money. But when these “conservatives” create a six billion dollar spending plan, it’s a prudent expenditure of public funds.
If you can’t be honest about what you plan to do with our money when you get elected, then maybe you don’t deserve to be elected.