What spending on moral issues? It doesn't cost anything to not fund abortions. It doesn't even cost any more to ban abortions than it does to protect the so-called "right." It doesn't cost anything to not promote homosexuality and promiscuity. It doesn't cost anything to not fund embryonic stem-cell research. Socialism is expensive, but that's the baby of "progressives" and also the inevitable result of radical libertarianism where gov't enforces communities to recognize no collective values. In the name of freedom they lose their freedom to distinguish between moral and immoral. "Diversity" and non-judgmentalism and tolerance of perversity are the new values. That may feel like freedom to some, but it is tyranny to others -- to those who want to raise their children to be virtuous and decent. Once everyone makes a disaster of their lives, you can bet they will demand gov't fixes. Look at AIDS. I am not talking about massive social control. I am talking about not slaughtering babies and not corrupting the minds of children and not condoning perverted sex acts and rewarding them with gov't benefits.
Social conservatives believe it is immoral to take away the fruits of one person's labor in order to give it to someone who has not earned it. That's theft.
Social conservatism is what enables fiscal conservatism to work.
Oh come on. If a govt has to make people do what they would otherwise not do then that govt has to enforce it. In this instance, to make abortion illegal. That is work and work costs money. As I said, if a state wants to enforce any social/religious agenda and pay the money to do so and it turns out to attract more businesses and people there and it evolves into a more harmonious community then God bless them. Lets try it at the state lever first. Any federal wide enforcement of anything costs people money, time and effort outside of their day to day path of least resistance. That cost will be paid for by the tax on the “fruits of your/mine/their labor”. That is a cost. I don’t deny its a cost sometimes worth paying but lets try any social con measure at a state level first. When it gains enough popularity across enough states then maybe we can put it up for an amendment to the constitution. In the meantime, if you try to impose your social/religious agenda on the federal govt then you are a utopianist as bad as the socialists. Remember they want to house, feed, cloth, and provide heathcare to the poor through the federal govt. Sounds pretty moral to me.