Stan "The Man" Collender had another good column yesterday. Comments follow: You've heard the song before, probably on a country station. It sometimes crosses over into the mainstream and seems to get a lot of airtime in Washington just before the Redskins play the Cowboys. With apologies to Willie Nelson, my guess is that the parents of would-be fiscal conservatives are singing their own version of the song these days. Start with George W. Bush, the self-professed fiscal conservative who has done more to damage the notion of fiscal conservatism than any big-spending liberal has ever done. The Bush administration has proposed and agreed to some of the biggest increases in spending since the Great Society. In the process, some of the largest hikes ever in federal borrowing will have occurred while this president is in the White House and the amount spent on interest by the federal government will be much higher than it would otherwise be for decades to come. There are four reasons for this. Equally as difficult for fiscal conservatives must be the realization that the president wasn't willing or able to stop others from spending. During the first six years of his administration, Bush refused even to threaten to veto appropriations with earmarks and other provisions that were so blatantly over-the-top they ended up being the subject of ridicule. The White House either didn't find them, didn't want to see them, or just plain refused to do anything about them. What makes this far worse is that, through its first six years in office, the Bush administration was operating with a Republican majority in Congress that was definitely dancing to the president's tune. The White House almost always got exactly what it wanted and was frequently dictating the outcome of most legislative battles, as well as the process used to achieve the desired results... The fact that there were no substantial behind-the-scenes efforts to curb spending increases...is the clearest indication that "fiscal conservatism" was simply a slogan this president used to get elected. The White House's unwillingness to act in a fiscally conservative manner has significantly changed the public perception of whatfiscal conservatism is. Instead of being a principled, go-slow approach on new and increased spending, it is now seen as something cynical: Spending initiated or politically important to the party in power is acceptable, but spending supported by the other party is not. Second, one of the most basic selling points of fiscal conservatism -- a smaller, but more effective government -- has been shown to be nothing more than a tagline that is not applicable in the real world. It started with the federal responses to Katrina, a massive government failure virtually unprecedented in American history. It was the result of years of inadequate resources devoted to a problem that was almost certain to occur at some point. But it also happened because the people charged with preparing and allocating resources were not up to the job. The same thing then happened with Walter Reed Army Medical Center and a series of other failures leading up to the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis several weeks ago. In addition to the human tragedy involved in these situations, there was also a lost opportunity for those who wanted to show that "smaller but more effective" could work. It demonstrated that you can only have "smaller" if you are also committed to "more effective." If, as the Katrina, Walter Reed, FDA and passport fiascoes proved, you provide fewer resources without an equal commitment to better management, the results will be catastrophic. Then, when a disaster or other type of government failure occurs, even those who claim to be the most committed fiscal conservativespublicly abandon any pretense of conservatism and quickly agree to spend massive amounts to deal with the problem. Any doubts about this pattern were dispelled immediately after Katrina when, in a nationally televised speech from New Orleans, President Bush essentially challenged Lyndon Johnson and said that he would spend whatever it takes. A few days later -- that is, at the speed of light for Capitol Hill -- Congress appropriated more than $60 billion. The same thing just happened with the I-35W bridge. Only days after it collapsed, $250 million was made available. These are funds that fiscal conservatives would have fought hard to stop only a few days before. Third, it has become increasingly obvious in recent years that some federal spending is necessary to make the government more effective. For example, we now know that requiring Americans to have passports to return from Canada and Mexico so that U.S. security is better requires that the agency charged with processing passport applications has more resources to deal with the increased need for its services. Military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan require more resources be provided for active duty and veterans' health care. It's also hard to maintain or increase Pentagon efficiency if it's not given the resourcesto properly procure goods and services. The fourth and most important reason this is a tough time for fiscal conservatives is that their goals appear to be far less popular than they thought. The extremely angry reaction to Katrina and Walter Reed was a clear indication that smaller government is far less politically important than effective government. The fact that most self-described fiscal conservatives have immediately voted to increase funds in response to every federal government failure indicates that they recognize that the policy they're pushing is not as popular or viable as they want, and want others, to believe. And that's why these days we're likely to hear someone singing a song that asks mamas not to let their babies grow up to be fiscal conservatives. I'd imagine many people out there are theoretical fiscal conservatives and operational fiscal liberals- the old line about the American public. When it becomes apparent that fiscal conservatism is about getting government out of the business of doing things people like, fiscal conservatives lose. Recent events, which Collender dutifully runs down in about every other column, have made the practical effects of fiscal conservatism quite apparent. Opportunities like this don't come that often, I imagine. I'd be nice if more liberals risked a little political capital on critiquing fiscal conservatism and asserting an alternative, other than singing the same song about fiscal responsibility and reducing the debt.