Social programs are a problem. And with so many anti-family laws passed over the decades, they’ve destroyed traditional family structure and prevented fresh, new competition from rising.
But the many interests that brought so many regulations against starting small businesses (especially against small manufacturing starts) are to blame, although in politics, they generally blame those on food stamps (e.g., for government teacher raises). Where are the manufacturing jobs?
What about the bureaucrats and their favorite, NIMBY constituents? They’re not doing anything useful. What about their serices (yeah, you). There’s not enough manufacturing on U.S. soil for revenues to sustain. So they do their part to pile up more debt for their fees and salaries while ragging about the descendants of those who once worked hard to support them.
What is conservatism, really? Think about it. Where’s the moral conservatism. Without moral conservatism, there can be no fiscal conservatism (which implies real work—not sitting at a desk and thinking about ways to steal).
The problem here is that there are statists in the picture, too.
They'll use anything they can to grab more power, if this means appealing to moral conservatism to continue an unlawful and, ultimately, liberty-destroying War on Drugs.
They'll appeal to the people who want a strong national defense by hyping up the War on Terror, even though there is no victory condition therein and the terms are being broadened to the point where any dissent can be considered within its purview.
The only thing that we can do to stop this trend is to embrace, at the federal level, a strong libertarian mentality which says That's not government's job
for all the stuff that we've been taught is government's job. The only way we can win with moral conservatism is to remove the power usurped by the federal government and concentrate the moral conservative in local/state races. — remember, the federal government was supposed to have specific and limited powers.
As an example, consider marriage. By pushing for a federal/legal definition of marriage, the people are implicitly giving the government the power to define marriage itself — this means that to get homosexual marriage accepted/legitimized all they have to do is change that law, and they've got the time to wait: after all your kids are in their indoctrination-centers… but you can deny them this by putting marriage into the realm of religion: it's a a religious rite not a matter for government to be involved in.