The American Spectator

R. Dittmar| 12.10.08 @ 12:52PM

Yes, it's true that trying to restrain the growth of Medicare spending was unpopular in 1995-96, just as the prescription drug benefit was popular in 2002-03. The former helped reelect Democrat Bill Clinton while the latter helped reelect Republican George W. Bush.

I think it's extremely unclear how the re-election of Bush was aided by the prescription drug benefit. To the extent is alienated conservative voters, it may have been a net (albeit very small) negative. Even without factoring in Kerry’s manifest deficiencies, I’d argue Bush was re-elected simply because the naïve and trusting American people expected him to efficiently conclude the war in Iraq. When he fumbled away that trust both he and the GOP were goners.

Bob| 12.10.08 @ 3:27PM

If you are really serious about making government smaller, please be honest about cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as that represents over half of the budget. Assuming conservatives won't cut defense spending, there is only 18% of the budget for all other spending.

The fact is that without a plan to reign in the big spending categories, Kristol is absolutely right. I've heard no one hear addressing how they would do that.

Paul E. More| 12.10.08 @ 4:30PM

There are ways to reduce some government costs. One would be to enforce the law against employing illegal aliens causing them to self deport. Or we could actually begin to deport larger numbers of illegal aliens. This would reduce medical costs in general, including some direct government spending but also reduce some of the increased costs of medical care, as part of the inflation in such costs is due to non-paying illegals getting “free” health care.

Another way would be to reduce the US troop presence overseas, for example in South Korea and in Europe. We could also withdraw US troop presence in other far flung areas, including the Balkans.

There are some small technical steps that could be taken to reduce costs or at least growth of costs in entitlements. These wouldn’t be popular in the abstract, but they would be compared to shy high FICA taxes or national bankruptcy.

Note also that Kristol wasn’t arguing for just maintaining the current size of government, but increasing its size.

The only way conservatives can win national elections is to have a constituency that is large enough and tied into the private sector to balance the left wing and its constituency of government workers and tax consumers. Conservatives can do that if they tie government policies aimed at protecting a middle and upper middle class to the private sector. In other words, government policy must be aimed at benefiting the voters most likely to vote for conservatives. This can be done by adopting policies such as trade protection, immigration restriction and a realist foreign policy, all of which would benefit a middle class and upper middle class constituency. All of these policies are opposed by Kristol and most Neocons as well as the Left and both the Left and the Neocons support Open Borders, “Free” Trade and Global interventionism based on abstractions and not narrow national interests in foreign policy.

If you support Kristol’s agenda, why not vote for the Democrats like Kristol’s favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman?

Bob| 12.10.08 @ 5:19PM

Paul, great response. I would cut Medicare and Social Security by raising the age and means testing. In addition, as you, I'd reduce the troop presence overseas and not give free health care to illegals. I would also not automatically give citizenship to people who were born here by parents who were here illegally. Also, getting rid of the neocons interventionist policy.

That said, I'd also insure that the government does NOT intervene on things like abortion and gay marriage which are religious in nature. It makes little sense to have a philosophy of small government unless you are consistent on all accounts.

I will no longer support unknowledgeable and incompetent candidates notwithstanding their party affiliation. That's why I could not vote for McCain after he chose Palin. Competence is more important than philosophy.

Paul E. More| 12.10.08 @ 6:06PM

Bob,

On social issues, as much as possible, why not adopt a state by state approach. Let the states adopt what policies they want on abortion, gay marriage (as long as that doesn’t entail imposing it on other states) etc.

This would drive these issues out of the national debate and let the national debate focus on national issues like immigration and trade policy as well as foreign policy. Left wing regions could have left wing social policy, moderate and right wing regions can have different policies.

Getting the national government out of these social issues as much as possible is another reason for supporting smaller government.