Posted by
Gamecock on Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:01:13 PM
I have often argued that Bush's reform approach to government has a better chance of gradually reducing government than would major cuts and elimination of programs. But I don't know that I'm right. Small government fiscal conservatism is the main principle that defines conservatism to me and which really won me over ideologically in 2001 to leave the Democratic Party I served for 20 years. But I find many fi-cons are not specific enough with their complaints and prescriptions; haven't thought out a strategy to get from A to B; and don't even know what B is.
If we want to get serious about reducing the size and scope of government, we have to disabuse ourselves of two notions that I think keep us from making progress:
1- Reagan did not reduce the size of government; and
2- Neither did Gingrich
They did good work in slowing the growth, but grow it continued and continues to do even after their years and after six years of Republican control of all political branches of the federal government in Washington, D.C.
Fiscally minded cons that really want to reduce government, need to do so in a serious way, holistic way, factoring in the differences between 1790s America and our post-WWII space age world and really get detailed about a plan we can sell to a majority of Americans
Simply citing Bruce Bartlett columns or Joe Scarborough diatribes gets us nowhere. We have to lay out actual proposals that reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Since part of that problem will mean a devolution of responsibilities ti states, we also need to stop demonizing State government Republicans that sometimes have to raise state taxes and meet state needs through government.
We need to truly replace FDR's New Deal with a non-Depression Era Deal. Even FDR himself commented that Social Security should evolve and that many programs should be eliminated whose purposes were to deal with The Great Depression. Some programs should remain that are the Safety Net Reagan favored and measures that help prevent depressions.
But, we are faced not with creating the perfect world, but rather with transforming a big government addicted world into a preferred world reflecting conservative principles. Therefore, we must wean the addicted from Big Government thru a transition phase before we can get to the perfect world, I call PLAN B. Or we risk being rejected by much of the middle class beneficiaries. We have to sell small government/fiscal conservative measures as problem solving measures, not just as an ideological end in itself. And we must not overstate our case by broad brush demonization of ALL government social legislation or doomsday allegations that don't match the experience of the past 60 years.
So I write to ask questions (and offer some ideas) about the transition and what PLAN B would look like concerning:
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid care
Health Care Insurance costs
Medical care Costs
Education
Agriculture
Interstate commerce laws incl the minimum wage
I want to start with education and ask a serious question, but first let me say that my plan B would be a transitional NCLB with fed money contingent on state's offering voucher plans and a phase out of the federal dept over 10 years. BUT, does any conservative see a role for the federal government in radical programs to meet national security needs, ala after Sputnik? Don't we need to an emergency plan to train scientists?
I favor reforming social security along the lines of Dubya's plan.
Got no clue on medicare, etc except that we need major medical malpractice reform.
On agriculture and the minimum wage, I intuitively oppose agriculture subsidies and as an econ major of the Milton Friedman school understand the ridiculousness of the min wage law, BUT
1- Given that we have had these subsidies so long and at the same time have had cheap food, one has to wonder if food prices would actually drop if we ended all subsidies? a question
2-Much of the rhetoric on the minimum wage here at Redstate is quite over the top. We have to face some realities.
a-We have had the minimum wage for decades most of which time has been the greatest years for n economy anywhere at anytime in history.
b-We lost the argument with the public over the minimum wage decades ago, and cannot expect to re-educate them now, especially with doomsday predictions of what will happen that fly in the face of the past 50 years.
c-As long as its low enough its mainly irrelevant.
d-The key to me is removing the issue from the dems who demonize us with it, which is why I favor indexing it to some % of inflation.
Fiscal conservatives have to do more than complain about social conservatives and others in the winning coalition that Reagan created that actually wins elections for republicans and made them the majority party. Get serious about what you purport to favor. I, and other evangelical/neo-con hawks are in your corner awaiting serious, realistic proposals that we can sell to a majority of Americans. We need each other to make a Minority Report from now thru 2008 that will allow us to make a Majority Report in January of 2009!
Gamecock - "One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com and The Minority Report