I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

$89 billion net proposed 2008 outlays – Dept. of Agriculture: Cut the subsidized loans from the Commodity Credit Corporation (which is supposed to stabilize food prices – hah), save $10 billion a year.  Keep a billion to run the credit administration and pay defaults.  Even if you keep food stamps, school lunch programs, and crop insurance, you can save some money here.$583 billion net proposed 2008 outlays – Department of Defense:  If you think destroying, and rebuilding, and destroying, and rebuilding the Middle-East is important to national defense, or that we need military bases in most of the world to be safe at home, maybe there’s nothing to cut here.  Otherwise, $200 billion savings would be a safe bet once you consider all the supplemental DOD funding that is almost sure to be passed.$58 billion net proposed 2008 outlays – Dept. of Education:  Founded in 1980, after only 15 years of any federal education funding.  Cut the budget to about $5 billion to address only the constitutional mandate I see:  protecting equal access and resolving discrimination disputes.  (Don’t get me started on Pell Grants or federally subsidized student loans, I’ll just say they are incredibly inflationary and politely request that I can leave it at that until I have to go back to work where I spend all day helping students find financial aid.)  The states do an excellent job of establishing public elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.That’s only a 10% cut, but its one that isn’t going to hurt anyone (ok, maybe some farmers who are good at gaming the cheap loan system and some foreign countries who like what our bases do for their local economy). 

What you really need to tackle is Health & Human Services, particularly Medicare, pharmaceutical benefits, and the rapidly growing health costs.  I don’t think this can be simplified by cutting or increasing spending:  you need to reform how the law interacts with the market.  I’d even take some advice from France:  Severely limit lawsuits against doctors.

I hate to use government intervention as a means of preventing government intervention, but you could literally take millions of people off the future disability rolls just by universally blood testing for Celiac and pre-diabetes.  Current medical demand is irrational:  people go to the doctor for every sinus infection and the doctors are happy to prescribe antibiotics for something that is usually viral.  I’ll reduce demand personally by staying out of that pill queue, and encouraging people to take charge of their own health with education, diet, and exercise.  I don’t have a magic bullet for the medical issues, but I know that throwing more money at it is part of the problem we’re in and not the solution to cheaper, sustainable rates.

But at this point, I’d be happy for any candidate who isn’t trying to get elected on a new set of promises and a new glut of spending.  I think cuts are not only possible, but also needed. 

Your particular partisan error lies in using Republican and Democrat as perfect proxies for left and right, liberal and conservative.  I may agree that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, but I would not agree that there is little difference between "left" and "right".  That spin is just one of those extracts from the Ron Paul campaign talking points and I refuse to sign on to an agenda written by a set of hypocrites, especially when that agenda is designed specifically to cover up their hypocrisy.

I would love a candidate that would take seriously the looming fiscal crisis in our country.  Unfortunately, there is only one that even pretends to do so (Ron Paul) and he is lying about it.  Instead of trying sweeping criticisms of "the system" or "corporate welfare", we need to argue about specific programs.  Care to try it?  Or are you stuck in the generalities provided for you by the Ron Paul talking points?

If you could show me a candidate who agrees with Ron Paul on fiscal issues and foreign policy, but is more libertarian on abortion, immigration, and trade – you could convert me!

The ONLY way that these benefits could be maintained (any transition to private accounts would only affect later generations) would be through massive tax increases on current workers

Why, because you think other spending cuts are impossible? 

it really does come down to being "corporate welfare" when they don’t like it and "investment" when they do like it

Well for all your kicking and screaming and dragging Ron Paul into this, you seem to have understood and agreed what I was trying to say in the first place.  Left and Right on spending issues is just a smart way of politically posturing around some funding and convincing your base that its one and not the other.  After watching Democrats protest Bush’s early term education increases (NCLB) and Republicans cheering this growth of federal government, hasn’t the absurdity of this paradigm sunk in yet?

I disagree a bit with your point about Paul’s stance on SS. I do see a meaningful distinction there because the recipients have paid into the sytem and did so with certain agreements made by the govt- and we now have an obligation to uphold those agreements.