If you read this blog, you: 1) Have way too much time on your hands; and 2) Know that I favor a Jack Kemp/John McCain style of conservatism, with goals such as free markets, free trade, pro-life policies, school choice, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (call it "amnesty", that dreaded word, if you want-coming to the US to improve your family's well-being is no sin in my book), etc.
I also believe, with McCain (but I doubt that Kemp would've agreed) that cutting spending is more important than cutting taxes. Simply cutting taxes, though always a worthy endeavor, won't make government smaller. It never has. And it's the massive size of our contemporary government, however its spending is financed, that impedes economic growth, and limits the opportunities of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
And we have a public that, broadly speaking, agrees with these goals. Poll after poll shows that people favor a less intrusive, less expensive state. There are twice as many self-described conservatives as liberals. Yet government grows and grows, and Pres. Obama, if allowed to work his fiscal "magic", would have us turn into a European-style welfare state faster than you can say "Social Democrat." And people who favor the ever-expanding state sure don't have any problem winning elections. Think of pork kings Robert Byrd in "conservative" West Virginny, and Jack Murtha in (no less) conservative Western Pennsylvania.
So-are we just hypocrites? We say we want less government, but really mean we just want less government for the other guy, but more for ourselves. We still want our farm subsidies, our corporate welfare, our endlessly-extended unemployment insurance, our government cheese.
Yes, we are hypocrites. We don't live up to what we say we believe. So why should politicians cut anything?