It seems the attacks on conservatism never cease.  On a daily basis within courtrooms or in the halls of Congress, conservatism - especially social conservatism - is always under attack.  We have been told by groups such as GOPround that Congress should ignore the social issues and deal strictly with the fiscal while they crash the conservative party at CPAC in order to push their gay agenda (gasp! a social issue), but you can read more about that issue here. 

Senator Jim DeMint, the conservative guru in the Senate if you will, recently talked about fiscal vs social conservatism:

“I hear regularly as I travel around this country, someone will tell me, ‘I’m a fiscal conservative conservative, but not a social conservative.’ I want to straighten him a little bit this morning, because the fact is, you cannot be a real fiscal conservative if you do not understand the value of a culture that’s based on values,”

Never truer words spoken.  Unfortunately, there are those within the Republican party and the entire Democratic Party who believe that social conservatives should shut up and go with the flow.  Even fiscal conservative darling Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) back in June stated that we needed a truce on social issues - which sank his stock with conservatives into the ground. 

In reality, many of the social conservative issues relate directly to fiscal conservative principles combining into conservatism, just as Sen. DeMint said.  Some of these fiscal arguments may seem petty or extreme, but to many people, they are not used to hearing social issues argued in this manner because most of the time, social issues discussed in terms of morals or religious contexts. 

Illegal immigration

The costs of illegal immigration to the US taxpayer are enormous.  Illegals are educated in our schools, and qualify for state welfare benefits in many states - all at the expense of the taxpayer.  In some states, including Illinois, illegals qualify for in-state tuition at state universities while US citizens of other states pay out-of-state tuition.  The Dream Act, like a case of herpes, never seems to go away.  Cost of amnesty?  $2 trillion in future government benefits and will not solve the problem.  What are the costs of guarding the borders?  Costs of fighting the drug trade across those borders?

Abortion

Each aborted child is one less taxpayer.  Harsh but true.  The damage to a woman's psychological well-being with a greater emphasis on counseling may put strains on long term care at a cost to the taxpayer.  Under Obamacare, the taxpayer now pays for abortions.  Abortion clinics and organizations such as Planned Parenthood get taxpayer funding. 

Welfare and Disability

The government has created a permanent class of people that live off welfare.  Welfare has destroyed the poor family, especially the minority family, allowing men to have more liberty of leaving the family; thus increasing the reliance of the single mother on welfare due to the lack of dual incomes in the household.  Although reform has curtailed some abuses, other abuses of the system still takes place.  The left crucifies anyone that even mentions "means" tests as cruel, but somethings such as cable, and cell phones are luxuries whether we like it or not.  A friend of mine has been chronicling the purchasing habits of Link card carriers at the beginning of the month (when they are recharged) and he has a point - if the taxpayer is buying the food, shouldn't we limit what can be bought?  Should the taxpayer be responsible for picking up the tab for 8 cases of soda, and bags of Funyons as I have witnessed?  Especially if the country has a weight problem and especially if the less fortunate tend to be less healthy than those with larger incomes - another strain on the medical system at the taxpayer expense.  Don't yell at me about that last one, just sit in any Sociology 101 class and they'll beat that one into your skull.  Also, should drug testing be required to receive taxpayer provided benefits?

What about disability?  This one hits a bit home for me.  I have a good friend, veteran and he legitimately disabled at this point.  He has two massive hernias (that the VA has taken over a year to do surgery on - thanks gov't healthcare!) and he cannot work as he is recovering.  He can barely move across the room without being in pain, but he is having to find a lawyer in order to get disability.  Meanwhile at the Legion of Doom, I know two different gentlemen who are collecting disability.  Both can work, and one of the gentlemen has worked but can't keep a job because he is an alcoholic.  The other gentleman can work, but doesn't really seem motivated to do so.  All three of these people I know very well, so how can these circumstances be right?  It's not and each step of the way, in all three cases, it has cost the taxpayers money when it shouldn't have.

There are more instances of how social conservative issues are financial, but I'll let you add your own, otherwise, I'd drone on and on.  The simple fact of the matter is that Sen. DeMint is right, social = fiscal conservative and visa versa.  Unfortunately, the left owns the language of social issues and tries to force us into arguing on a moral or religious basis - which is not exactly wrong - but we must reclaim the language of social issues and re-frame the argument in dollars and cents in addition to moral terms.  Own the language, own the argument.  Liberalism is expensive and destructive, just ask Greece, Ireland, England, or any other "social democratic" countries.  Add the costs of public sector unions to the mix and we have a powderkeg waiting to go off.   So don't be fooled by pundits and other naysayers that will tell you that social conservative issues should be put on the back burner or should not be talked about, even at parties.