It has long been my argument that the term "fiscal conservative" is effectively a lie. More completely, it is an effort to get you to believe that anyone not claiming to be such is fine with profligate spending. In that linguistic deception it has the company of phrases like "anti abortion". They are both a variation on what science fiction writer Robert Heinlein called the best way to lie. He said that the best way to lie was to tell the truth so unconvincingly that no one believed you. So yes, they are anti abortion, fiscal conservatives who put their pants on one leg at a time. Which is to say, they are exactly like everyone else.

Except they are not. Yea, I just lied to you. The truth is if someone makes such a claim, they are typically trying to hide their support for something or a past action that they themselves undertook. If you dig around in the lives of the most strident anti abortionists you will find unwanted, and frequently, terminated pregnancies. The loudest fiscal conservatives are guaranteed to have their mouths firmly attached to the public teat or, at least a plan for feast thereon. It is ALWAYS an effort to distract and/or deceive when those claims are made. ALWAYS!

Government costs money. One of the reasons we form governments is to save money by group purchasing things that we all need. Take law enforcement as an example. Everyone can recognize the need for a law enforcement group that works the way Hollywood depicts them. Honest, friendly, forthright and helpful individuals who are willing to put themselves in harm's way to ensure the safety of a citizen, that is the ideal and what I am talking about unless I specify otherwise. (yes, I know that frequently they are something other than that.) Their cars and motorcycles and ballistic vests and other equipment costs money. Their training, both initial and continuing education, costs money. The offices and bureaucratic supplies costs money. Support staff must be paid. We pay our taxes with the idea that our law enforcement personnel (and fire, and codes, and engineering, and ...) will be properly equipped and supported.

We pay that. Local residents of a given municipality and/or county pay the money that provides for the local law enforcement organizations. As such, the organizations are typically under the executive control of the local mayors and legislative control of the councils and commissions.. They get to decide what the priorities are. They are hired (elected) specifically to determine how our money gets spent. They live in the municipality, they have to to be elected. We see them at the grocery store, at public events, at bars and parties. Sometimes they get an ear full but, that is the job they campaigned for.

Imagine my surprise, my shock and dismay, to find out that some of our most vocal fiscal conservatives were in favor of policies that were in direct contravention to those concepts. Imagine the idea that those who spout the loudest about taxes, are suddenly fine with ceding control of the priorities and procedures of our local law enforcement to very non-local authority. Will I ever be able to believe their claims of fiscal conservatism going forward? (Did I ever?)

I am a known Liberal. I am a Progressive that proudly wears the title "Berniecrat". I am also fundamentally opposed to unfunded federal mandates being handed down to our local Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs). I cannot help but see that as the non-legislative tax that it is and it amazes me that anyone would be so stupid as to not see it. Immigration, and by extension immigration enforcement, is the domain and responsibility of the federal government. Those federal agencies responsible have no authority to re-purpose our local LEOs to do federal work without compensation to the local municipality.

My mayors, city and/or county, need not declare our local municipality a sanctuary city or county or region. They can if they want to but there is no need for them to. What they NEED to do is to make sure that their authority over the manner in which my local tax dollars are used is not usurped by out-of-control federal agencies. While we do need to have a serious and substantive conversation about immigration policy at the appropriate level, they cannot in the meantime, simply and arbitrarily levy a tax on the time, training, equipment and supplies of our local LEOs. We pay that tax and I am firmly against it.

This may well mean that a hardcore Liberal, an ardent supporter of a Democratic Socialist, is more of a fiscal conservative than any of the liars that run around claiming to be.