Those Tax and Spend Republicans...; or, 'the real Alabama conservative'

I will take (and assume the reader takes as well) blogger-notice of the political philosophy involved; more specifically, one of the cores of conservative political thinking, that taxing and spending ought to be done more at the state level than federal level. Conservative cuts at the federal level have the intended consequence of strangling federal programs- and if states then want to pick those programs up, and collect the taxes necessary, have at it. The Democratic opposition to this (mine anyway) is that federal programs are in fact more effeicient, and more importantly, more capable of doing their intended good than would be state programs. But in any event, this is a noble and potentially thoughtful political discussion that deserves to be openly and honestly played out without cheap political rhetoric.
(dissents to these opening presumptions...please voice off in 'comments' below.)
Right. So here we are at part two of the Bush Tax Cut series. It should be quite obvious to any clear thinker that the tax cuts do not establish a federal spending capability to suffice the future needs of federal programs- and that these cuts are designed to further the affore-presumed conservative theory of heavier state taxing and spending than is now present. (again, dissenters, have at it). In my mind, this is the controlling power's objective. And thus I am sad to see the open and honest debate on whether this political theory is a good idea, feasible, better for the country, ...et al. Indeed, even if this is not the objective...even if the powers that be really believe in the pie in the sky notion that the tax cuts are fiscally responsible and will maintain the current federal spendings, doesn't it seem the theory ought to be brought up- at least to say, 'this isn't what's on our mind, trust us.'?
well. it seems we are seeing the proof of our presumptions coming about...oddly to the shock of many. Here's a slice of the NY Times story on Alabama's Gov. Riley's proposed tax hikes:
"Bob Riley, styles himself after Ronald Reagan, complete with a pompadour and campaign photos that show him on horseback. Philosophically, too, he is an avowed Reaganite who says he never voted for a tax increase in six years in Congress and was once named its most conservative member.
Yet this same Mr. Riley has stunned his state and his party, and risked his political future, by calling for Alabama's largest tax increase ever: $1.3 billion, or 22 percent of the taxes the state now collects.
What is more, this conservative Republican wants not merely to raise taxes but to redistribute money from the wealthy to Alabama's working poor.
In one fell swoop, it seems, Mr. Riley is trying to overhaul what many here in Montgomery acknowledge is one of the nation's most dysfunctional state governments, and drag Alabama's finances, schools and prisons into the 21st century � if not, some might say, the 20th."
Now, I've included enough language to raise the argument that I'm wrong- that the proposed tax cuts are in response to specific circumstances in Alabama rather than to diminishing federal funds. And that may be so. But, as a stridant conservative, it seems to me perfectly consistent that the Riley would want higher state taxes as opposed to higher fed taxes- and that he'd look to state programs to improve the state as opposed to federal funds.
In sum, my complaint is this: if the tax policy is suspiciously alligned to the age-old conservative theory above enumerated, why aren't we talking about and debating that policy? Let's get going.