If you think about it, we are, as a nation, pretty much in a holding pattern with regard to social issues. Nothing much changes on these issues as a result of the actions of Congress or the President, regardless of the party in power, despite the passions that these issues generate. Certainly nothing much of substance has changed on social issues since Barack Obama took office. People like to try and play up the social side of conservatism, but it was the Republican's failure on the financial and economic side that caused them to get thrown out on their butts. Government spending, bailouts, debt and financial issues have been been the primary focus of the tea parties. These issues top the list of concerns on the minds of most Americans. Moving back towards more responsible spending practices by the government will be difficult and controversial in the implementation. But that is the direction that conservatives believe the country should be heading in. For those left-leaning Republicans who disagree, let them go caucus with Arlen Specter and the Democrats.
One of the reasons that the GOP lost its way on fiscal issues, however, is that they started electing a bunch of people who really were social conservatives, but didn't really care about the fiscal side. They are people that talk about fiscal responsibility, but they don't necessarily actually govern that way. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress, for example, were there all through the 2000's, but now suddenly they are leaders on fiscal conservatism? These were the same people that spent up a storm when they were last in charge - what credibility do they have?
I agree. Palin and Rush represent the neo-conservative movement that put the party in the position they are in. The libertarian, Goldwater repubs have been alienated as much or more than the nonpartisan moderates have by the policies of the party during the last 12 years or so. It's become "us" against "them", and there just aren't enough "us" neo-cons to carry a national election against "them", i.e., everybody else.
Tom Delay was an appropriator and a fiscal moderate. He was a social consecrative. At this point in time, most real conservatives couldn't care last about the social issues, it's fiscal conservatism we're demanding.
Honestly if it's fiscal conservatives you like, you'd be better off with the Democrats. Their health care bill cuts more off the deficit, and Obama even pledged that if it ends up adding anything to the deficit he will cut spending to make up for it.
In the most literal possible sense, most conservatives do care about the controversial social issues. Even libertarian types care passionately about the social issues, they just passionately advocate a different set of positions than the social conservatives. However, our elected leaders are just not likely to have much to do with decisions relating to these. Conservatives tend to be extremely practical people. Practically speaking, these issues are just not the object of very much legislative attention. It just does not make sensed to get distracted by controversial social issues when fiscal issues are clearly the most critical issues that this country has to cope with right now. The actual effect on most people's lives from government decisions relating to the controversial social issues is hugely less than from fiscal issues. That is why fiscal responsibility is the primary issue focused on by conservatives at the tea parties. And it is a theme that all true conservatives broadly agree about. Fiscal responsibility is the ultimate litmus test for a true conservative.
And that's where I differ from the Democrats. That bill will MASSIVELY increase the deficit over the long run. I know it and the Democrats. Sure, it decreases it over the first 10 years, because we pay into it for four out of the six without getting anything in return. After the first 10 years that six year surplus will be gone and the deficit will balloon.
Speculate much? And even if one accepts your statement, have you run your projections against the status quo (where the lines of health care spending and the national GDP, um, cross)?
You're right it is speculation. Even the CBO says there is no way to predict what will happen after the first ten years. However, Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion in 1990 when it was originally passed. It actually cost $107 billion. I'd say there is precedent there.
That's fair. I would say to keep an eye firmly on the status quo though. Not that many people are still saying "do nothing, it's great."
