We should transform these programs from forced-savings vehicles into strong safety nets that protect future seniors from poverty.
I'm sure you're wrong here, Keith. They should be BOTH forced-savings and a strong safety net. The forced savings should be for yourself, like you getting all the SS tax you've put in, plus interest (Fed rate), but the amounts put in by your employer go to the safety net. Which you only get if you need it -- means testing the safety net.
Chile's forced savings, as the current best practice I know of for sustainability, should be the model.

It might well be that Catholics, 54% of whom voted Obama, would be against big cuts in gov't spending on the poor -- but they, and other Christians, are not so happy with the ineffectiveness of gov't support.

There is certainly some tension in the pro-life, pro-family Christians who think gov't is too big, bossy, tax grabbing, and especially ineffective, and many anti-Christian libertine Libertarians, who also thing gov't is too big.

But reducing gov't spending, and taxes, are key to economic growth, so most Tea Party folk recognize this. However, since an actual majority of the Tea folk are often pro-life in most areas, it should be expected that they will support pro-life candidates who are also pro-tax cut, anti-gov't spending.

It's probably time to start attacking the sponsors, by name, with YouTube type videos:
ABC says X, but was lying, and does Y.
BigCompany chooses these liars to tell you about their product.
Do you believe the liars of ABC?
Do you believe their advertisers are more honest?

Yes on both major issues here: a) admitting you're wrong when wrong. (Has de Long or Krugman done that? Likely with some major blame shifting to avoid "manning up" to it.)
b) continued push to separate tax cut effects and spending effects.

In fact, future research will likely show that most tax cut deficits DO have a small, positive, return on investment (in terms of increasing GDP over time), but the majority of spending effects are negative. ($100 spent gives less than $100 long term benefits).

There's one debate about whether home ownership is worthy of gov't support. I think it is, but agree that it might not be, especially if gov't support is unfair.
Given the huge popularity of the interest rate deduction / bank loan subsidy / speculation subsidy -- the more interesting question is how to get optimal, fair support for homeowners.
For instance, a flat rate 30% tax credit on house payment, both interest and principal, would be more fair than an interest deduction.
Also, there should be a lifetime cumulative maximum, perhaps 10 or 20 times the prior year's median taxpayer gross income (maybe $40k, so a max of $400k or $800k).
There should also be a maximum size of the house.

Finally, the gov't could offer an immediate "Lost Down Payment" no-interest loan to all underwater homeowners, equal to the down payment the homeowners made. This loan would start to be repaid to the gov't after unemployment is down to 8%, and be collected by the IRS.
The gov't should make more such Tax Loans to target groups now, with the idea of getting more cash and aggregate demand now, with repayments coming after recovery, so the Tax Loan is deficit neutral over a business cycle.

The conservative movement should go back to ML King and the definition of non-racism from the I Have a Dream speech:
children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
All those who discuss racism should be challenged -- should people be judged by their color?
Then asked, does Affirmative Action judge people by their character, or by their color?
Isn't it really Affirmative Racism?
Conservatives are against racism, anti-black racism, AND pro-black racism.
Leftists, who support group identities more than individuals, support pro-black racism, affirmative action, affirmative racism.