"But I'll take a party that tries and fails to live up to its belief in smaller, limited government over a party that is comfortable, even approving of government's inherent tendency to grow in size and power."

This is a very tired argument. I know. I keep using it myself. How about an acid test for Republicans running for office and re-election? Show us a list of things that you will do, or have done to actually shrink anything. The Republicans in Sacto always get a free ride - the Dems control everything, we can't do anything.

Lately the Republican cowards in Congress have used national security to break the bank - with almost no accountability for their irresponsibility.

But at least at the County and municipal level we should hold to the fire the feet of any soi-dissant conservatives who have claimed as a campaign slogan that they will "reduce" something. Lets' see it!

Well, this is why I vote Libertarian.

So a promise to shrink government, and political posturing is good enough for you? Actual legislation and actions don't matter?

Pork and feeding at the public trough filled with taxpayer monies don't matter?

Look at actions not words! Only Clinton reduced the size of government and turned a deficit into a surplus. Democrat, Republican, or Independent this is the kind of real action that is needed in this country!

Saying you believe in one thing, then supporting something different is what has this State and Country in such a dire state. lets get back to what is really important to us as americans.

Any idiot can grow government, and they often do.

If I understand your post correctly, I can conclude the biggest idiots in the federal government have been republican.

I think most will agree.

Heck, we even turned into de facto Democrats after gaining control of the White House and Congress

... if you can't think of any successful examples of 'Republican' behavior in your post, perhaps the truth is that you didn't 'turn into' anything?

This reminds me of the TA in the lone Ethnic Studies class I took in college (don't blame me, I'm an engineer, it was a requirement) sputtering that the fall of Communist governments worldwide wasn't an indictment against Communism as a system -- rather, it just showed that the fallen weren't true Communists!

If I understand your post correctly, I can conclude the biggest idiots in the federal government have been republican.

Maybe, but the most experienced idiots have been Demcorats.

Biff:

Huh?

The Communists tried to implement Communism, and the results of that effort are well known.

The source of disaffection for myself and many other Republicans is that once we achieved control of both the Presidency and Congress, we didn't do those things that were supposedly the reason for getting control of Congress and the Presidency.

So a promise to shrink government, and political posturing is good enough for you? Actual legislation and actions don't matter?

Argh. Can't anyone read anymore?

No. It. Is. Not. Good. Enough.

I. Want. The. GOP. To. Live. Up. To. Its. Principles.

And why do you and every other "Clinton reduced the size of government" commenter conveniently forget to mention that happened with a GOP Congress that was elected in the wake of Clinton's attempt to vastly expand government by taking over health care? That always seems to get left out of the hagiography.

Maybe, but the most experienced idiots have been Demcorats.

I guess if you consider that it was a dem who submitted balanced budgets to congress (something Reagan or either Bush can claim)as being an experienced idiot, then Dems can claim to be guilty as charged.

And why do you and every other "Clinton reduced the size of government" commenter conveniently forget to mention that happened with a GOP Congress that was elected in the wake of Clinton's attempt to vastly expand government by taking over health care?

Because that same GOP congress went on a wild spending spree when it had a friendly pen in the Oval Office. It's safe to say that it was a dem who kept spending under control during those years.

As far as the costs of Clinton's health care. What's the difference between that and the costs of the NCLB that Bush imposed. Which btw has been an absolute boondoggle for his brother Neil? It must be nice to be able to enrich ones self at the expense of the taxpayer.

Taking Dan's 50-year yardstick as a measure, maybe you can recall it was the Democrats who controlled the appropriating arm of Congress throughout his and Bush I's administrations.

It was they who routinely pronounced attempt to cut spending as "dead on arrival."

When it's a Dem President and a GOP Congress, credit goes to the Dem President. When it's a GOP President and a Democratic Congress, blame goes to the GOP President.

That's a nice system you have there.

Because that same GOP congress went on a wild spending spree when it had a friendly pen in the Oval Office. It's safe to say that it was a dem who kept spending under control during those years.

And maybe you can look at other factors at play, such as after seven years, the GOP Congress had lost it's zeal and become comfortable with government and using the power of appropriation as a way to perpetuate themselves and increase their own power -- a phenomenon Democrats to which Democrats can claim no immunity.

Plus, 9/11 broke any remaining fiscal restraint and President Bush refused to serve as a fiscal brake.

As far as the costs of Clinton's health care. What's the difference between that and the costs of the NCLB that Bush imposed.

I opposed and still oppose NCLB. I want the federal government out of education, not more enmeshed, even if the goal is noble (as the professed goals of government programs nearly always are).

As far differences, NCLB is a federal government mandate on local government institutions made possible by the latter's financial dependence on the former. But it's a government-to-government thing.

Clinton wanted to bring an entire sector of the private economy under the control of the government. And the Dems still want to do that.

So while the Reps failed to live up to their principles of smaller government, to use that to claim the Democrats are somehow the party of fiscal responsibility and government reduction is a joke.

A Democratic president submitting a balanced budget to a GOP Congress, or a Republican president submitting a balanced budget to a Democratic congress.

Which do you think has a greater chance of success?

"I want the federal government out of education, not more enmeshed,"

Wouldn't it be nice to extract from all Republican congressional & presidential candidates a pledge to abolish the DoEd?

Only Ron Pasul would do it. And he's written off as hopeless.

There's a bad contagion in Republicanville.

There's a bad contagion in Republicanville.

I agree, RP.

In 2002, the GOP took over the federal government -- and the federal government subsequently took over the national GOP. It's dispiriting. Honestly, I'm not sure it is possible, under ordinary circumstances, to reduce the size of the federal government. And not just in the numbers of body on its payroll. I mean in scope, in the number of programs, in the areas of our lives under its control, directly or indirectly.

In retrospect -- and I don't mean this as an endorsement of him for prez -- if McCain had been elected in 2000, the GOP might very well be in better shape politically and, for lack of a better word, spiritually.

McCain would have been a strong bulwark against the GOP Congress's breakdown in fiscal discipline. That would likely have staved off the GOP's 2006 collapse.

But we'll never know, shall we?

Plus, 9/11 broke any remaining fiscal restraint and President Bush refused to serve as a fiscal brake.

While there may have been significant support for the war, there was never any inclination towards asking the citizens to sacrifice. I can only assume (a dangerous concept I know) that there was too much political risk in doing so.

I opposed and still oppose NCLB. I want the federal government out of education, not more enmeshed, even if the goal is noble (as the professed goals of government programs nearly always are).

I guess it's good to say that you personally opposed NCLB, but where was the conservative community and Bush supporters who opposed this intiative that was underfunded from the start? When this idea was proposed, crickets chirping made more noise than the opponents.

Clinton wanted to bring an entire sector of the private economy under the control of the government. And the Dems still want to do that.

Considering how much of that particular so called private sector entity is dependent upon federal spending via medicare and other government programs I'm not sure there is any risk to that action. It seems to me the only thing Clinton is asking is to cut out the middle man. The folks who take a cut off the top for their own personal gain but don't actually contribute to health care delivery. i.e. The executives of the large health care providers.

Matt -Thanks for starting this little string. I pose the question not merely as a numbers test, but as an exercise in rhetoric vs record. Nice to see that so many people chiming in here agree with me.

And as far as limited government intrusion goes, Republicans lose thos argument to from Patriot Act abuses, dusregarding FISA laws on domestic surveillance, monitoring our banking transactions, and having telcos eavesdrop on Americans a full 6 months before 9/11. Cheney is stumping for telco immunity; if they didn't do anything wrong, what do they need immunity for?

I don't care how big or how small government is as long as it is efficient and responsive to the needs of the people.

But Matt, rather than focus on the actual record of huge increase in size and personal intrusion of this federal government, coupled with its general ineptness, you trot out the spectre of Democrats making it even bigger and worse.

It always seems you are personally against some Republican program or position that is an unquestioned failure; why are you still a Republican then?

The past 50 years have not shown much progress in the reduction of the federal government, regardless of which party was in control. There are a few points where there was some reduction.

Republicans, who claim to be the party committed to reducing government, are not fielding any viable candidates who have a great track record of reducing government.

Huckabee thinks God told him to spend millions on government-run social programs.

McCain's proposed social program will cost billions and grow government exponentially.

If the Democratic Congress asks, Romney will bend the same way he bent for the Massachusetts legislature and how he is bending for the meantime for conservative Republican voters during the primary season.

When this topic is revisited in 50 years, there probably won't be much of a difference in responses, only the names will change.

I guess it's good to say that you personally opposed NCLB, but where was the conservative community and Bush supporters who opposed this initiative that was underfunded from the start? When this idea was proposed, crickets chirping made more noise than the opponents.

I guess you weren't listening to conservatives at the time, because there was plenty of criticism.

I guess it was Bush who wasn't listening. Not like that's anything new.

Maybe he saw it as a way to line his brother's pockets. Something completely ignored by the Bushbots.

Jubal:

Fact: Clinton reduced the size of the federal government at least as defined as the size of the federal workforce. He also presented to the Congress and signed balanced budgets.

Fact: The Republicans controlled Congress for most of his terms in office and opposed congressional Democrats efforts to add significant expenditure to social programs.

Why is it so hard for people on both sides of the aisle to give credit to Clinton and at the same time acknowledge the Republican congressional role in having a balanced budget? I don't know if Clinton could have pulled it off with a Democratic Congress. Certtainly it would have been more difficult. I do know that he campaigned on this issue, he and Gore made it a priority to shrink the federal workforce and he had the political will to take positions that were outside of the mainstream of Democratic conventional wisdom(welfare reform, NAFTA, etc). But having a GOP congress whose leadership wanted to, in part, starve the beast, made the balanced budget and shrinking workforce efforts much easier. And certainly health care would have added significantly to the budget--as has the Bush prescription drug benefits --although we're all paying either in taxes or higher insurance premiums for the lousy system we have now.

The Republican budget hawks were, with some notable exceptions, silent and/or inenfective during the current Bush Administration. For example, whatever you think of the Iraq War, its amazing but unfortunately predictable that neither Bush nor the GOP budget hawks(nor many Democrats for that matter)have been fiscally responsible and either raised revenue or cut expenditures to pay for the war. While there are certainly a good deal of negative consequences to divided government, there seems to be little doubt that a great if unintended advantage is keeping government from expanding significantly. Political hegemony brings us budget busting, erosions of civil liberties and lack of congressional oversight on FUBAR's like the early part of the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina.

Contrary to popular myth, every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government's size, scope, or power--and usually all three. Over the last one hundred years, of the five presidents who presided over the largest domestic spending increases, four were Republicans. Include regulations and foreign policy, as well as budgets approved by a Republican Congress, and a picture begins to emerge of the Republican Party as a reliable engine of government growth.