stuzzy

Well, the U.S. government has to get money from somewhere. As a two-term former Republican senator from Florida, where do you suggest we get money from?

What money?

The money to run this country.

We'll borrow it.

I never understand where all this money comes from. When the president says we need another $200 billion for Katrina repairs, does he just go and borrow it from the Saudis?

In a sense, we do. Maybe the Chinese.

Is that fair to our children?

I am not worried about that...

It has always struck me as strange that there doesn't seem to be more of a place for a kind of Painean libertarianism within progressive politics. "That government is best which governs least." seems to generally be dismissed as inimicable to the principles guiding an "activist state". But why should it be? Such a progressivism would seek to fight moribund, overreaching bureaucracies by promoting smart, effective, local, self-knowledgable government.

If Democrats truly are progressive and don't want the term to be something more than a synonym for liberal, they ought to take the tax reform debate away from Republicans and focus on gaining support from economic conservatives.

Economic conservatives are fed up with unwise Republican spending. The Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere, highlighted by the failed Coburn Amendment, has become the equivalent of John Kerry's $87 billion flip-flop - a perfect illustration of Republican irresponsibility that Joe Six Pack can understand. (As a side note, the Coburn Amendment would have repealed the $250 million for the pork barrel bridge. It failed 82-15 which meant it had bipartisan support. Why in the world did the D's not support it thus providing them with some tangible proof that they are the party of prudent spending?)

Proposing a new tax code that when printed in full doesn't resemble the size and weight of a cinder block would go a long way to shedding the misconception that Democrats want big bureaucratic government.

The thing differentiates the two parties, is both the 'what', and 'how', they want to impact the lives of Americans. Your brief summary of those differences are a good place to start, but others could be added. The conservatives want as pure a market-based approach as possible, where as progressives believe there is a legitimate place for government involvement, for protections of workers, the environment and the general populace. But each of these focuses (by conservatives and progressives) require an activist government to achieve the end goals.

One of the things I hope the Democrats beginning doing next year, during the mid-terms, is to de-bunk the myth of small government, and turn the debate into one of PRIORITIES of government. One of the easiest differences in priorities will be between the priorities of the conservatives to address the needs of corporate America, whereas the progressives address the needs of individual Americans. That discussion alone will appeal to those Americans who are now feeling they are much more on their own, and would like to feel like someone is working on their behalf.