what i'd like to know is when, precisely, the republican party evolved from a group of similar minded individuals espousing a milton friedman-esque policy mindset of small government and a federally devolved power structure, to one that now looks worse than anything seen since the advent of the new deal
wonder if bush will actually veto anything before he exits office.

This sounds like too much sour grapes.

Lets look at the polls. With the nation tied between favoring more or less GOP/Dems in Congress, CAFTA passed only after a lot of arm twisting, SS reform is stalled, and there is no call to roll back Medicaid (many want it increased).

Since this is a democracy and not a tryanny, we ought to expect that we get the programs that the electorate supports.

Should a President veto bills? Not if he is effective--he wouldn't have to veto bills. The threat would be sufficient, especially when his party controls the Congress.

The point is, you got what the nation supports, not necessarily what is best. Now (to the Cato member) go out and make the argument for small government. Don't expect an elected official to carry water that you will not or cannot carry yourself. You have not made your case yet. Maybe you should blog.

I'm not commenting on the party balance in washington, or in the state legislatures. My issue with the republicans, having been one most of my life, is that they no longer advocate one of the central tenets of the party's ideological platform, namely, small government and curtailed spending especially at the federal level.

The current crop of republican federal representatives, controlling both the legislative and executive branch of the govt, have embarked upon massive spending and goverment growth programs, contravening the aforementioned tenet.
Hence my allusion to the new deal.

As for the efficacy of a president and their capability or willingness to effectively wield a veto, i think that's a bunk arguement. Obviously there are certain situations that would constrain a president from effectively using that power, but his pen should have been tearing up the energy bill let alone a number of earlier pork laden bills.

Objectively, many things could and should be done differently. However, politics is a game of relations. (There is no bonus for eliminating X amount of pork--only in eliminating more than the other party would). There are some objective issues (oath of office, fidelity to the Constitution, etc.), but spending is not one of them.

A more proper question would be to ask if the party you vote for raises the bar to the level that you are holding it (not wishing it--holding it).

to which i'd have to respond...clearly not clearing said bar, which is why i made the post in the first place.

Though effective cutting of govt size and spending have been achieved by different presidents and congresses over the last 40 years, but the trend clearly favore growth of both to the detriment of all, in my humble opinion.

But to your point about the cato member, better to engage and attempt to effect a change then sit on the sidelines and whine which is what i appear to be doing at the moment

That's because the libertarian wing of the Republican party didn't win. The Republican party is not monolithic. The Christian fundie half WANTS bigger and more intrusive government.

But it's good to hear folks at Cato aren't blinded by party loyalty.

what i'd like to know is when, precisely, the republican party evolved from a group of similar minded individuals espousing a milton friedman-esque policy mindset of small government and a federally devolved power structure, to one that now looks worse than anything seen since the advent of the new deal

September 5, 1995.

Bush is neither conservative nor compassionate.

He is owned by corporations and fueled by polls and snarky political operatives.

That's because the libertarian wing of the Republican party didn't win. The Republican party is not monolithic. The Christian fundie half WANTS bigger and more intrusive government.

Oh, please....

Look, the fact of the matter is you're only part right here. The Republcians are not monotithic. But to blame Christians for the libertarians not winning is like Michial Jackson blaming Tom Sneddon for his non-existant record sales.

Has it not occurred to any of you,(And I include Cato, in this jab) that the very reason the Republicans now hold a majority, isn't that the RFepublicans have changed so much as it is that the Democrats have shifted to the left? The Republicans with the 'big tent' simply stepped in and took over what the Democratic party so willfully abandoned.

The anti-spending constituency within the Republican Party has atrophied over the last twenty years for three main reasons. In no particular order these are:

1. The predominance within the federal budget of spending on entitlement programs that few Americans want to reduce, and military spending that even Republican small-government types generally favor, especially after 9/11. This predominance means that even zealous opposition to domestic discretionary spending has no promise of making a major dent in the size of government.

2. The divorce of the spending issue from the tax issue. Years ago plausible arguments could be made that higher spending would lead to higher taxes. Over the last decade a boom economy (which made higher spending without higher taxes possible) and Washington's later willingness to run huge deficits have made these arguments implausible.

3. Within the walls of the Cato Institute and a few other places, opposition to federal spending is an ideology. Everywhere else it is more of an attitude. As such it can be gratified by politicians willing to use appropriate rhetoric, whether or not they actually fight spending increases. Since most people do not blame their own Representative or Senator for the things they disdain about "Washington," rhetoric favoring limited government is usually taken at face value. Few voters take the time to investigate whether the words are backed up by actions.

There may be another, less obvious factor at work here. This is that public attitudes can be gauged today with much more ease and precision than they could be years ago. Politicians face much less uncertainty over the kind of things their voters are likely to hold against them. This means among other things that they are far more resistant to elite Washington opinion -- these days, this includes the opinion of institutions like the Cato Group -- that certain problems need to be dealt with. Politicians twenty years ago could be spooked into thinking that they would pay a political price for ignoring the federal budget deficit. That's not as true any longer.

Here's what I want to know: since when do Republicans control the Supreme Court? I really don't see it. Okay, sure, there's Bush v. Gore. But that's just about it. I also see extraordinary animus towards SCOTUS from the right; if they're controlling it, they've got a funny way of showing it.

Interesting that nobody so far is so foolish, or so loyal a Republican, as to deny that the transportation and energy bills do more to line the pockets of people who are already faring quite will than they do to advance any legitimate public purpose. You don't have to be a Cato-style libertarian to see this, just somebody who's passed Econ 101.

when, precisely, [did] the republican party evolved from a group of similar minded individuals espousing a milton friedman-esque policy mindset of small government and a federally devolved power structure[?]

Given the coalitional nature of the Republican Party, I'd argue it never had those attributes (certainly not since the return to electability, and the grudging acceptance of the fundamental tenets of the New Deal, with Eisenhower). A few leaders along the way (Goldwater, Gingrich, Gramm) may have been serious about those things, but for all of them there were plenty of Rockefellers, Pells, Nixons, and the like who certainly weren't. This is certainly no new phenomenon, either.

Chris, you may be thinking of John Chafee, Lincoln's father, and for many years a Republican Senator from Rhode Island. His Senate colleague Claiborne Pell was a Democrat.

Zathras: The anti-spending constituency within the Republican Party has atrophied over the last twenty years for three main reasons. In no particular order these are:

You left out a far more important factor.

4) Republicans now control government.

It's a lot easier to be anti-spending when the other guys are the ones doing the spending. If you're in the minority, you don't get credit for the spending when it's popular, so you might as well oppose it. If you're in the majority, suddenly every vote for a new program wins you plaudits.

No, David, I did not leave it out. Republicans managed to sustain considerable support for cutting spending throughout the 1980s, during which period they always controlled the White House and for most of which they controlled the Senate as well. It was in the late 1990s, when Republicans held a narrow majority in both houses of Congress but did not control the White House, that spending started to accelerate again, and of course it has continued to do so -- this time without significant Republican opposition.

5) Blue State Republicans. Fiscal sobriety is not common among elected Republicans in these states, particularly in the Senate.

BTW, Gene Healy claims credit for the quote.