A parallel problem exists for the Democrats. Their big umbrella paradigm includes the most extreme progressives. If they want to survive, they can include progressive thinkers, but they can't cater to them by making thieir agenda a verbatim mainstay of the party's platform.

The idea behind reform is to decide on a platform and then let the factions decide for themselves whether they're in or out.

You had a good post on conservatives, but I think you were wrong to exclude neocons from the picture since they do make up a large part of the GOP and will have to be part of any reformation of the GOP. I think the problem you is only looking at the foriegn policy aspect of some neocons and not looking at the whole history of that movement. This Wiki entry has some good points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatives

I guess what I am getting at is that they did have some good points when it comes to social policy, seeing a place for government, which set them apart from Goldwater conservatives and liberals who wanted to spend money but failed to connect it with values. In many ways, Grand New Party, by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (which I suggest you read) is based on some of those early neoconservative beliefs on social policy.

While I do blame the neocons for an overly agressive foreign policy that got us into the mess that is Iraq (I tend to be more of a Scrowcroftian realist), that doesn't mean that necons have no value whatsoever.

I guess I would add that the social cosnservatives might also have a place in the GOP. And know that I am choking on those words. But the social cons are not a monolith, especially younger conservatives that are might be anti-gay marriage, or pro-life, but more concerned on issues of the environment or the poor. I disagree with Sam Brownback, but he has been good on issues like Darfur.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we should not start doing what the far right has done for so long in the GOP, decide who is in and who is out. Go ahead and propose a new plan, but let's let people decide if this is a vision for them or not, let's not become as hard-hearted as they are.

Dennis

I especially like your position about not relying on dogma, of any stripe, to insulate policy from its measurable, in-plain-sight, effects. We would be much better off, IMO, to go about it the other way around. First, asses the effects of current policies, and only then decide what changes, if any are needed.
That it took so long for anyone at the top to realize that economic theories have real consequences, is just pain amazing Where have they been?

As an object lesson, it's interesting to watch China. Their superlative economic success has a dark underbelly, as dispossed farmers, now turned into exploited migrant workers are a seething, angry mass. China keeps the lid on the anger by brutal means, because it can. The brutality can't be duplicated in democracies, so it's even a bigger worrry. for the West when people start feeling like expendable cogs in a machine over which they have no control and from which they derive no benefit.

Yes its so our corporations which are run by highly overpaid workers(in relation to the rest of the world) can afford to sell our products overseas.

Let's see. A corporation establishes a mailing address on a Caribbean island so it can claim that it is headquartered there and should pay little to no U.S. taxes. It then proceeds to shut down its manufacturing operations in the U.S. After that it offshores its backoffice operations to Singapore, its customer support to India and then only has a skeleton staff of a few hundred Americans. This is an extreme hypothetical but there are businesses that are doing all of these things. Once they've done that exactly why should any American want this company or its investors to get tax breaks? In case you didn't notice they're not our products anymore.

this people should get over. its the 21st century. Why do you think GWB has allowed the dollar to slide? Yes its so our corporations which are run by highly overpaid workers(in relation to the rest of the world) can afford to sell our products overseas.

I really wished people understood economics instead of spouting talking points.

It's easy. Very easy. Invest in the Chinese stock market. The European stock market. Stuff it away in hidden accounts in the Caymans, Lichtenstein or any other number of havens to hide money and profits from any other taxation. Invest in American corporations that are shrinking their American work forces as they grow their number of employees in Asia. None of these really help the American economy in spite of arguments to the contrary. Not nearly as much as the loss of the tax revenue costs.

that means an economy that is only growing 1 to 2 percent. It means 5.5 percent unemployment but it means health in the long term. This nation needs a dose of Chemotherapy and it needs it now if it hopes to live.

Sad but true.

Ronald Reagan as president actively encouraged Americans to invest and save. Its the key to economic health. Money in the bank is a sign of a healthy economy to the rest of the world. Money in other nations banks is not.

I'm not suggeting this would have no impact, only that — if our goal is to spur economic growth — then cutting taxes further for the mega-wealthy is perhaps not the most reliable or equitable way to do so.

Reagan slashed their taxes already. I'm fine with that move; those taxes were too high at the time, and the size of the cuts was sizable enough that it did lift the economy. What's more, there's nothing to say further cuts wouldn't be productive or helpful at some point, but they might not be as productive at lifting all boats on the sea (in the near-term) as other options, and they could be destructive if critical revenues are lost for infrastructure and the like because we haven't first instituted more stringent cost-controls/discipline.

It's a matter of priorities and results. That's all.

Not as much. And nothing was said (because it's been given up upon as the GOP becomes happy with being in power in Washington) about returning to federalist principles and attempting the minimum in Washington while relying on most to be done by state and local governments. It is a myth that it has been tried and failed; it hasn't been tried in modern times, since the 1930s, in fact.

The real problem (key to balancing the budget) is the reduction in spending that is essential. Don't expect conservatives to get liberal cooperation in that area.

“There are no guarantees the mega-wealthy will invest their extra post-tax income (at levels proportionate with their tax cuts) into the economic stream that creates the rising sea that lifts all boats.”

Exactly what is meant by this, a claim the wealthy won't invest, or that they won't spend their money? I doubt all that money will go into tax-free bonds to finance current debt accompanied by no reduction in spending, but with tax reductions.

In your tax section, you wonder if the wealthy would invest their ill-gotten money.

Aside from literally putting cash in a mattress, how does one avoid injecting capital into the economy?

When the immigration bill was shot down their went lots of money, lots of tax dollars and lots of room to expand. Thus the GOP is going to need to rethink their entire approach to the Reagan trickle down theory that more money to spend equals more revenue for the government. That only works in an expanding economy and I do not see the economy expanding at the 4 to 5 percent needed to justify the tax cuts they have put in place.