One useful point from the snopes article was the reminder of the pitfalls of applying words written decades ago to present-day situations. Just as “history may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes”, old opinions lose their literal relevance but still serve as examples of broad themes.

I don’t think Ike’s principles were as situational as you imply, when you speculate–as snopes cautions us not to–that Ike’s opinion would be different today, primarily because the price tag is now known. He also might’ve dismissed number play, such as comparing SS outlays in earlier era when there were fewer retirees from a system not yet two decades old (demographics, man) and people didn’t live as long.

When I integrate Ike’s thoughts in this letter with his warning six years later about the “military industrial complex”, I’m even less inclined to label him a conservative in the modern sense. I think he viewed Hunt not as somebody who simply disagreed with him on economic policy, but as somebody who posed a threat to democracy by advocating anti-democratic ideas about the proper power and role of the wealthy. A threat of an order similar to giant defense contractors and concentrations of power in the Pentagon. It’s all of a piece, and I think if Ike consistently applied his principles to today’s world, I think he’d focus on the cancerous growth of the very thing he warned us about–Wall Street, and our shiny new post-9/11 “military-industrial-surveillance” complex. Things that would label him a RINO or worse in the eyes of today’s “conservative” wingnut.

Here.

(The Snopes link was dead.)

It is important to note the size, scope, and power of the Federal government at the time this letter was written (1954).

The Federal budget, in constant dollars, was less than a fifth of its current size.

The Social Security outlay, adjusted to current dollars, was around $40 billion. Note that this number will crack the trillion-dollar mark by 2017.

Payroll taxes at the time were 4 percent (2 percent each from employee and employer), and 3 percent for the self-employed. These numbers have tripled today, and keep in mind that this is not a progressive tax. This 4 percent tax rate produced a comfortable surplus for the program.

Back then, Federal education spending was almost nil. Until the interstate project, the Federal Highway Department was primarily concerned with roads into national parks.

I could go down a long list of differences between Federal government in 1954 and what we have today. Some of it is the result of demographics, but most is the result of decades of “mission creep” for the Federal government. I suspect if Eisenhower could get a look at 2013, he might still not have agreed with Hunt, but he might have written things a bit differently.