While I remain a conservative, I have to say I am highly disappointed with some of what the alleged conservatives have been up to lately.

Frankly, the level of fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is shocking to me.

Let's talk about the deficit for a moment.

Not long ago, the national deficit was nearing the legal limit. Yes, we have to have laws governing how big the deficit can be. How sad is that?

But as our nation's deficit neared the $8.2 trillion ceiling, Congress took swift, decisive action. They raised the ceiling to $9 trillion.

I'm not joking. They really did that.

And it's nothing new. In fact, this was the fourth time they've found it necessary to raise the debt ceiling since W took office.

All the while, W has been talking about deficit reduction. When will the insanity end?

The "conservatives" in Washington are turning political ideology on its head.

It used to be the Democrats who were known as the party of "tax and spend." Long known for a sort of "Robin Hood" fiscal social engineering whereby people with income paid taxes to support people without incomes.

Of course, that's not a really salient policy because tax dollars - by the time they are distributed by way of a government program - aren't full dollars anymore. They're more like half dollars.

So basically, by virtue of government bureaucracy and inefficiency, a fairly large percentage of tax dollars go down the rathole.

Besides, raising taxes tends to slow down the economy. And the revenue stream to the treasury doesn't swell either, because taxpayers - when hit with a tax increase - often find ways to shelter income and increase their deductions.

Higher taxes also means less money for capital expenditures by businesses for expansion. Expansion and jobs are the cornerstones of the economy.

A better idea is to limit or decrease taxes. This leaves more money in the economy to be spent by consumers.

And more money for businesses to expand and create jobs.

And that's pretty much what's been going on since W has been president. Despite things like 9/11 and the resultant near-collapse of the airline industry, the dot com bust, hurricanes, spiraling energy costs and all manner of other bad news, the economy is still chugging along and unemployment is hovering around 5 percent.

When you think about it, that's really pretty amazing.

I think W's tax policy is working. Besides, leaving more money in the hands of working Americans is always a good thing.

And revenue to the treasury is booming because of it. In fiscal year 2005, the government collected the highest level of federal receipts in history - $2.15 trillion. That's up from around $1.8 trillion in 2002.

Here's something else to consider - the growth of gross domestic product:

* GDP growth over the past 20 years: 3.1 percent.

* GDP growth during the Clinton era: 3.6 percent.

* GDP growth since the Bush tax cuts: 4.1 percent.

* GDP growth today: 4.3 percent.

So, hey, give W credit. He got that part of his fiscal policy right.

And don't let anyone - well, any liberal - tell you there is no correlation between tax relief and a growing economy. And don't let them tell you there's no correlation between tax relief and increased revenue to the treasury.

They're wrong. And you can prove it with a few clicks in Google.

(And don't buy into the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric, either. I'll save debunking that nonsense for another column.)

But despite the good news on tax relief, the economy and tax revenue, the bad news overshadows it.

W has totally lost it on the spending side of the equation.

Despite record revenues, we've got record deficits. I know Congress spends the money, but if I was W, I would have vetoed everything until the "conservatives" reined in this ludicrous level of spending.

W can truthfully say the budget deficit declined last year to 2.6 percent of GDP. Whoopee!

But what he won't truthfully say is that the deficit rose like crazy from 2002 to 2004 and that none of the 2005 decrease came from spending cuts. It came because revenue rose sharply.

Yes, the "conservatives" in Congress are spending money like a drunken Paris Hilton in Neiman-Marcus.

And the "conservative" W apparently does not have the moxie to stand upÊto them.

Brings to mind Bill Clinton, who was far more fiscally conservative than W.

But he had help.

The thing that helped Clinton achieve a moderate level of fiscal restraint was the fact that real conservatives took over Congress in 1994.

Remember Newt Gingrich? Remember the Contract With America? Remember the balanced budget provision?

With adversaries in Congress and the White House, less money got spent.

Congress blocked Clinton's spending proposals and vice versa.

Net result? Fiscal sanity.

Just more proof of what we really need to improve government - gridlock. [[In-content Ad]]