The problems involved in trying to seriously cut back the size of government in a republic where most of the population LIKES most specific govenment programs (especially the large ones) is exactly an unfamilair problem. Most of the proposals for how to solve that problem end up sounding hypocritical at best and mendicious at worst.

But as much as I loath movement conservatism, I have to say I have SOME sympathy for the sincere fiscal conservative who wants to accomplish all that he can in the way of limiting government without cutting his own political throat. So I’m not sure that it is fair to say, for example, that failing to advocate the end of medicare deprives someoen of the right to argue against an expansion of government.

That said, certainly those “conservatives” who went along with the Bush era expansions of government don’t have a leg to stand on.

[...] the [...] reason why the GOP has lost so much has nothing to do with spending, the war, or any policy matter. Rather, it is because the electorate has contempt for the Republicans [...].

[...] the contempt of the GOP was earned by the policy decisions.

A. The GOP made bad policy decisions
B. The voters have contempt for the GOP stemming from A
C. Due to B, the voters do not vote for the GOP

Hence, we can apply the transitive property to this logic, and reasonably come to the assertion that the GOP lost so much because of policy matters.

Oddly, Daniel echoes the GOP establishment line that spending doesn’t matter as a front-burner election issue.

The GOP establishment’s line IS that spending is a front-burder election issue. Don’t believe me though, take it from Michael Steele.

In your next post you argue that giving poor people health insurance won’t make them beholden to the Democrats. I’ll just leave that as that, and let readers take away what they will.

Come on Daniel, that’s just not so. The GOP had a lot of stuff on the table then: welfare reform, Medicare reform, the elimination of three cabinet-level departments.

There is a truth to the idea that no Republican president nor Congress has ever attempted to seriously slash the whole budget, even with the “federal freeze” Newt oversaw. But that doesn’t mean that significant damage wasn’t done. Hell, in a sense we had the worst of both worlds, money spent in an effort to appear that such and such program was doing its job, while ensuring it was never enough to do the job properly. That takes a special case of mismanagement.”

Sean, I have to say that I am a bit flabbergasted at the direction some of the commentary has been going here recently. I really didn’t realize that the unconstitutionality of Medicare and Social Security was anything other than taken for granted in paleo. alt right, constitutionalist, Ron Paul supporter circles. (For the record “privatizing” Social Security is an incredibly stupid idea. It is simply forced investment in the stock market. But the phasing out of Social Security is a no brainer. Also, in a truly free-market it is likely that HSA would be the market outcome.) What is going on here? Did I miss the new found pragmatism memo?

Okay, that’s true. Which means that most Republicans since at least 1995 shouldn’t be able to call themselves by either name. Gingrich had no intention of reducing the size of government, which is why accusations that he was going to do so were attempts at fear-mongering. That doesn’t mean that reducing the size of government and scaling back or eliminating these entitlements are undesirable–I think these things should happen–but that the charges against Gingrich et al. were false. We might wish that they had been true. That would have been a fight worth having. As it was, Gingrich was every bit as much of a “tax collector for the welfare state” as Dole. That was what I was trying to say.

“How can someone have any credibility saying that Obama is disregarding the Constitution, ushering in Socialism, or saying nice things about following the Constitution or whatever and then act aghast when some Democrat says they want to cut Medicare?”

Exactly–he can’t. This is why Gingrich and a lot of people like him don’t have credibility when they moan about the evils of “Obamanomics,” even when they may be right that Obama’s domestic policies are quite bad.

The charge that Gingrich was going to cut Medicare was first-rate fear mongering by the Democrats.”

But this is part of the problem from the alt right perspective, is it not? The GOP SHOULD want to cut Medicare (phase it out) because it is grossly unconstitutional. The fact that people like it doesn’t make it any more constitutional. Politically you can’t talk about ending it right away, but you lose any right to call yourself a conservative or a constitutionalist if you defend the basic legitimacy of the program or act appalled that anyone would dare suggest you want to cut a program that is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.

How can someone have any credibility saying that Obama is disregarding the Constitution, ushering in Socialism, or saying nice things about following the Constitution or whatever and then act aghast when some Democrat says they want to cut Medicare?

People like Medicare- it is actually pretty popular. Which just reinforces Daniel’s point on spending, and, for the most part, the Republican position on damned near everything these days. They stake out the most extreme, most unpopular position on any issue, call it “conservative,” and then pretend that that has always been the “conservative” position and that even St. Ronnie of Reagan himself supported that position. They then work overtime to cast out anyone who points out that a.) that isn’t a conservative position, b.) the position makes no sense and is actually counter-productive, c.) is wildly unpopular.

That is the modus operandi for the current GOP.

It’s fairly easy to believe when you see the only things that are threatened to be so are the social welfare programs. Do people forget that Bush wanted to, and failed, to privatize social security? Or that he wanted to enact HSA’s as the principle form of insurance coverage? The fact that he failed at both of these things because of an emboldened Democratic majority (or what was a minority soon to be on the ascendancy) does not mean he did not attempt to do so.

There is a truth to the idea that no Republican president nor Congress has ever attempted to seriously slash the whole budget, even with the “federal freeze” Newt oversaw. But that doesn’t mean that significant damage wasn’t done. Hell, in a sense we had the worst of both worlds, money spent in an effort to appear that such and such program was doing its job, while ensuring it was never enough to do the job properly. That takes a special case of mismanagement.

There are a lot of us who wished that were the case, but plainly it’s not. It’s amazing that people can still believe this after the Bush Administration (either one, really).

Of course. This gets back to the current services baseline and the fiscal debates from that era. But, as limited as the GOP reforms were we’d be in much better financial shape now if they had gone through. I think that any fiscally literate person not grinding an anti-GOP axe has to admit that.

This might have been true in 1999 or 2001 or so, but the issue has changed a little bit since then. Right now, the political urgency of health care has to do with the covered at least as much as the uninsured. The broke and the working poor have adapted to going without health care services or using the emergency room when issues can’t be ignored.

But in addition to that, insurance is covering less, co-pays and preexisting conditions are costing more. Most workers didn’t see any real wage increase during the Bush recovery since their compensation increase went directly to health insurance premium increases. David Frum has been banging on that particular drum for a while now, I hope that source isn’t ritually tainted for some of the readers here.

In any case, the two main problems of health care, lack of coverage and lack of cost effectiveness are essentially competitive with each other. Obama has to manage expectations here, and for now I don’t think he has any idea how he intends to do it.

Right–Gingrich wanted to cut Medicare about as much as Obama wants to cut the Pentagon budget. In other words, there were no cuts involved. Repeat after me: reductions in the rate of increase.

The charge that Gingrich was going to cut Medicare was first-rate fearmongering by the Democrats.