Redstate

a Bill Kristol Neo-Con and proud of it....

erick
smile

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

That's a worthwhile topic, but its not going to get much attention now, over Christmas. But I think that you, me, Niel, and some others are thinking along the same lines here.

Bill Kristol - well, 'tis the season for forgivness, so I forgive you that one.

I agree that we need to stop expecting perfection and overnight revolution. For self-described conservatives to want radical change is just nonsense. That's why I put quotes around "fiscal conservative" when I refer to the Bush- and Congress-bashers that defected or threatened to defect in the last election.

However I think you're conceding too much on some issues. On the minimum wage: yes, we've had great growth with it, but what else has happened over the years? We've taken all the jobs that American teenagers used to have and either eliminated the services entirely, or given them to illegal aliens instead.

Has our society benefited from that? Or rather, just how badly have we been hurt by teenagers not being able to enter society productively with that first part-time job. I don't now how things were in your day, GC, but when I was in high school it was virtually impossible to get something. Employers would rather pay an illegal alien who will stay in the job a long time, over a high school student, for the amount that the government forces them to pay even their part-time pre-entry-level labor

If we MUST increase the minimum wage for political gain, and I'd still like to see some evidence that capitulating on this would help us more than it would hurt us politically, then I'd rather that we made it a one-time increase. That way, over time the effects on our economy will have the opportunity to diminish, as they have with the $5.15 wage.

Is it coincidence that employment has gone sky high over the last 10 years without minimum wage increases? How much better could we do if we let inflation eat away at it further, and if we in fact pushed harder to eliminate state minimum wages above the federal level?

For our politics to be successful we do need to be able to compromise, and show gradual PATHS to good times. However in doing so we have to lead the country in the right direction.
--
Run like Reagan!

via the state's minimum wage law. see above discussion and also, do you remember the news stories a few years back(maybe it was the 90s even) about how the state's higher than the federal min age was pricing teens out of the job market?

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

we have to disabuse ourselves of two notions that I think keep us from making progress: 1- Reagan did not reduce government 2- Neither did Gingrich

This really isn't an accurate statement at least by one important measure of government, that being the "true size" as measured in terms of federal employees plus persons working under federal contracts, grants, and mandates. While I know many assume that only defense jobs were cut in the 90's, here we see that between 1990 and 1999, Energy dropped 400k, EPA down 90k, NASA down 35k, and - gasp - even Education shed 22k jobs. Sadly, many domestic programs grew, but overall the total trend was down, and even by themselves all non-defense domestic programs dropped by 50k jobs between 1993 and 1996 (then grew again).

So the operative question to me, now that we see it actually is possible to trim the size of the federal government, is why Congress during the 90's had (only) partial success, and why Congress since 2000 decided to completely abandon the goal, judging by their behaviour. Remember that the Republican Congress was re-elected a few times during the 90's and there wasn't a war on to drive security-minded voters their way - but the relatively carefree (financially) 109th just got the boot. So I suspect this idea that voters will punish politicians who try and reduce the scope of government but reward those who increase it is quite unfounded.

We have to sell fiscal conservative measures as solving a problem, not just as an ideological end in itself.

That's an easy sell but it's going to require the discipline to recognize that there is a limit to how much we lower taxes without actually lowering expenses - cutting waste, terminating low priority programs, etc.

How about talking about a problem most Americans can understand - our government spends more than it makes! (cue someone explaining how this doesn't matter and we can just keep growing the debt forever and ever and ever...) Then ask Americans what they'd prefer... giving the government more of their money, or seeing the government do fewer things. Be sure and explain that just because the Federal government butts out of, e.g. Education, doesn't mean their State can't do whatever it feels is necessary for schools under its purview.

a transitional NCLB with fed money contingent on state's offering voucher plans and a phase out of the federal dept over 10 years

What's NCLB have to do with voucher plans? Absolutely nothing. The plan should be doing away with federally mandated tests, standards, and other wasteful interference and let States manage this. Nothing will stop a state from implementing its own NCLB-style program if it so chooses! Nothing would stop a state from implementing vouchers either!

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?

If the Federal government needs scientists for defense related purposes then let them hire who they need into that department. I'd like to hope we can put people in leadership positions who can prioritize security needs and focus on what's important, if they need scientists let them hire them. This has little to do with the topic and more to do with correctly assessing priorities (national security would be a high one) and executing necessary programs that are consistent with those priorities. I'd like to see leaders who, for example, recognize that manned missions to Mars are irrelevant to national security.

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?

Drop all subsidies and end all tariffs, and let the food industry work out the most efficient and cost effective manner in which to grow and/or import food and subsequently distribute it for sale. You will see lower prices.

Minimum wage is fairly irrelevant to reducing the size of government.

Lastly, could some fiscal conservatives ... lay out a transition and Plan B for ...

It's a good question, I hope you get some detailed answers but the wonkery involved is beyond me. For my part however it seems that step one for non-wonks is to find people who by both speech and practice appear to be capable and willing to work toward the end goals we want - and then elect them. Those who are unwilling or incapable - especially those who've been given the chance and then blew it - need to get the boot, over and over again, until the message gets through. That's a plan ordinairy people can fathom and execute on our own.

www.race42008.com - http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Now a Columnist for The Charlotte Observer

Dead on. We must start shrinking the size of national govt. And you are also correct that it must be a phased operation. And of course you are correct that no fiscal conservatives have really done so.

I know what the goals are for me (eliminating depts, reforming the tax code [I prefer the fair tax, which eliminates the IRS], and finding a way to cap spending). But I leave it to you and the more economic trained individuals on this site to propose the baby steps.

Here's a good one for you, and I'll be darned if I can figure out a way to fix it. I would enjoy knowing if it could be done with some sort of baby steps, since the public has become so addicted:

I want the elimination of all federal financial aid for education (except maybe for military veterans). I believe that such a bold step would force the university system into the market place, where tuition would have to be slashed to reasonable amounts or students wouldn't attend. An education would now become affordable. Schools would also have to be competitive to attract students, and would have to streamline (just like a business) to keep up. This means less lefty bias, more professors in the classroom, and more accountability to the consumer (the student).

I think more people could afford an education if this was done.

I also would like to see some incremental moves made towards proping up the individual health savings account system, as well as some discussion on how to move towards personal retirement savings and away from the confiscatory and failing social security scam.

I leave it those wiser than I on this site to get us there.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

In a few hours I am travelling to my daughter's for Christmas. I can hardly wait to see my sister's New York City liberal face when she opens 2 of her presents from me, Looming Tower, and Because they Hate Us by Brigitte Gabrielle. heh

Here is where I currently see things. President Bush is Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee in his foreign policy initiatives, and the Democrats are Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad. I prefer for both foreign and fiscal policy to be like Samuel Clement's pen name. Try to keep this Ship of State in the middle of the channel and avoid the sandbars of the radical right and the lunatic left.

I also may watch this Pursuit of Happyness based on the life of Chris Gardner. The money quote from an interview with Chris Gardner when he was asked: "What important lessons have you’ve learned from your life experience?" His reply: Man, I’m still learning. One is: The cavalry ain’t coming. You’ve got to do this yourself. How would you like to be one of them folks down in Louisiana or Mississippi waiting for that cavalry to come save you? Another very important lesson is that baby steps count, too. As long as you are going forward. You add them all up, and one day you look back and you’ll be surprised at where you might get to."

I really think Mr Gardner's answer are words for all of us to live by.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

We libertarians in the GOP coalition welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues as you suggest Gamecock. There's great areas of agreement between Social Cons and us libertarians, like home schooling, tax cuts for married families with kids, ect...

But you Social Cons have got to realize that once in a while you all royally piss us off, like that idiotic internet gaming ban. It leaves us scratching our heads and wondering, "how can we call these guys friends and allies?" Worse, it gives food to the fodder, of those within our own libertarian movement who should, "Leave the Republicans, they have no respect for our libertarian views."

Meet us half way, and we'll meet you all half-way. Treat us like dogs, and we'll either sit home, or go the 3rd party route.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

1-safety net (would it include HUD at all?)

Not a federal responsibility. There should be no federal safety net. Leave it up to the states to determine what they want to provide, how they want to provide it and how they want to pay for it. If the states refuse to provide something (such as free food), you can be sure that churches and charities will step in and provide it. Impossible sell politically, I know, with all the people in gimme gimme gimme mode, but it was wrong to create this at the federal level in the first place. It's still wrong.

2-education

Remove the Federal government from the equation entirely. The dept should have never been created. It has served no purpose, except to worsen the qualify of education students across the country receive. I'm a big fan of school choice (incl. private) on the state and local levels (where education belongs).

3-medical care

Impossible to fix. We might as well just go socialized now because the road we are on will inevitably lead there and there's no way off the road. We've been traveling down that road since WWII, with the wage controls that lead to ubiquitous insurance coverage through employers. There is *no way* to fix this system so long none of the users of it have to pay for it. No market will work so long as you have the bill payers and the decision makers as two entirely separate groups of people. As you can see, I'm not optimistic about any fix for this system.

4-soc sec

I would favor eliminating it entirely. Barring that, turn it into a system of forced saving for retirement. Barring that, means test it and roll the tax into the income tax. Turn it into another welfare program, where we only give it to those who need it and everybody pays for it.

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

Food prices will probably increase. That's not a bad thing. We're paying that bill and then some anyway... we just are paying it through the IRS instead of at the checkout stand. Agribusiness need to lose their anti-trust exemption, along with any other specific carve outs in the regulatory scheme, at the same time.

2-Much of the rhetoric on the minimum wage here at Redstate is quite over the top. We have to face some realities.

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.

The minimum wage has done most of its damage already. It was doing that back in the 60s. Back in 68 it was something like $8 or $9 an hour in today's dollars. You can look at rural America if you want to see the price of that. There are some regions of the country that are nearly dead. These are places where the average age is in the 60s because there are no jobs to be had there. You are extremely lucky if you can find a job for minimum wage. No Wal-Mart is going to come to town because there's no buyers to support it. You look at any rural area with no tourism potential that's 2+ hours from a decent sized city and you see this. Many of these towns peaked in the 1940s and 1950s and have since fallen off the cliff. You can buy a decent house in some of these towns for $20,000, but who can afford a $20,000 mortgage with no job?

To see what the minimum wage has done, you have to look locally, not nationally. The statistics don't tell the story. Most of the country is virtually unaffected by it, certainly at it's current level. The parts where it has the biggest effect are where it does the most damage.

Politically, I think the minimum wage is vastly overrated (just as stem cells are). How many people vote on the minimum wage? Maybe a few more than vote on the government cover up of alien abductions from cornfields, but considerably less than most real issues.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman