Actually, Reagan passed big increases in Social Security hoping that people would rebel against them and end Social Security.
It ended up backfiring on him because the American public never organized enough to oppose the increases.
SS taxes have always been the largest taxes that low income people pay since employee and employer split the cost 50/50--it's not the fairest system at all, and definitely not what many in the FDR administration wanted, but they figured it was the only way to ensure the policy would be maintained for decades.
I guess they were right--at least until now, when Social Security is completely under fire.

I remember the Reagan initiative to cut Social Security. My conservative Republican parents wrote angry letters and my Dad being a Republican Party leader in Illinois was not alone. Reagan withdrew the proposed cuts within a week, and then turned and joined with a bi-partisan effort in Congress to strengthen it!

And Reagan was in truth as noted willing to raise taxes to avoid adding even further to the deficit and fund programs.

I cannot see how, someone not Ronald Reagan but with an identical profile could get even to first base as a Republican now.

Is anyone in that party listening to the Lindsay Grahams? A moderate center/right (the old political center of the 1980's or earlier) Republican Party would just destroy Democrats and own Washington and not seriously threaten our democracy.

The problem is our fractured electorate of fearful and angry voters may cast ballots in 2012 that are even more irresponsible than in 2010. The scoundrel and the fascist right might come into office.

Well, it's just become progressively worse on the Repug', historical perspective, from Ike (a real "Liberal")-Nixo n-Reagan; then the "Insufficiently conservative" Bush-1 (and that faux- dem' Clinton's actions against the poor might well count into the mix) to the deep plunge into the darkness of Cheney-Bush 11 (order of command mine) "coming-out" in full-view support of undisguised Plutocracy, moving towards full Fascism under the slumbering conformity and insouciance of the numbed-by-comme rcialism populace.
The sad part is that the Dem's have hitched their wagon to the rightward trail, instead of circling them and comin' out shootin' back (apologies to my American Indian friends -no true analogy intended).
By the way, Reagan was NOT a very nice guy: he was a fink (as the late Kurt Vonnegut called him) for the McCarthy Hollywood witch-hunts and destroyed many careers and lives, before he even thought of running for anything -and he started off as a Democrat. Basically a professional turncoat and slippery as Hell during Iran-Contra, for which he should have been impeached, had a few equal stinkers like Olly North hadn't taken a dive for him -and come out smiling later.
The present crop of whatever-you-ch ose-to-call-the m are a PHd class in what has gone before them and are using intimidation to prop up their medievalist power-aspiratio ns!

As a politician Reagan committed the #1 sin, he would change his mind. All of the items listed above prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ronald Wilson Reagan was indeed a flip flopper.
The real strength of the modern Republican Party consists of their ability to invent their very own narrative. For example, they will tell you that they won in 2010 because the American people wanted spending cut and that taxes were too high. Reagan on the other hand, would have understood that the American people wanted jobs.
Reagan flipped and raised taxes when the government was running out of money.

A poll watching flip flopper, that is what he was, that is also what Obama is.

I am unsure of my conclusion, but we did wonder which former president Obama would most emulate. F. Roosevelt, Lincoln, or maybe Reagan.

So far, Reagan appears to be the model.

True, the historical facts of Reagan's two terms do not square with the myth of Reagan bandied by the Teabagged GOP. His administration never once submitted a balanced budget, nearly tripled the national debt, and raised taxes six times for an aggregate rate of over 18% of GDP during his presidency. The Teabaggers would most likely term him a RHINO and make certain he could not win election. This would be surprising, given the way in which the GOP genuflects to the image of Reagan, were it not for the demonstrated principle of not letting facts get in the way of a ideology driven narrative. What the Reagan worshipers also conveniently forget was his deregulation of the S&L industry that led to the crash of that industry and the largest financial hit this country had seen since WWII, that is until Baby Bush came to power. Historical facts are such pesky things.