Posted on 11/14/2002 10:48:41 AM PST by mrustow
Toogood Reports [Thursday, November 14, 2002; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
It was a familiar socialist tableaux: The triumphant candidate flanked by supporters from big labor and ethnic constituencies, each of whom he greets in turn. Only the victor was "conservative" Republican Governor George Pataki. How could this be?
In terrible Spanish, Pataki expressed his gratitude to one Hispanic Macher after another, including Dennis Rivera, the head of 1199/SEIU, the health workers' union. Besides being a communist, the anti-American Rivera is the biggest supporter of Al Sharpton and the other criminals and traitors who have interfered with U.S. Navy exercises in Vieques, Puerto Rico. In fact, Rivera has promoted his interference with national defense in his union's magazine, though it is hard to see what such machinations have to do with protecting the interests of the rank-and-file. Although the authorities have turned a blind eye to the matter, it would also be nice to see an audit to determine whether any union funds have gone to support the criminal activities at Vieques.
(Not that Rivera does a good job of running his own union, either. As an 1199 official recently lamented to me, "He doesn't seem to know what's going on in his own house." In spite of a bloated bureaucracy, members often have to call repeatedly for weeks, in order to get the simplest requests – like eyeglass vouchers – filled.)
Pataki paid dearly to get Rivera's support. He undermined the American military and served the cause of anti-Americanism by calling publicly, and in a conversation with President George W. Bush, for an end to naval exercises in Vieques. We're at war with an unprepared navy.
The bad Spanish presented other omens, as well. It meant that although on the same day that voters in socialist Massachusetts had eliminated bilingual education, this "pedagogy" – the greatest method ever devised to retard language acquisition – was safe in New York. It meant that, in spite of 911, and all the documented terrorists and violent criminals who have slipped into this country illegally, or illegally overstayed their visas, Pataki is a pro-illegal-immigrant governor. It meant that Pataki doesn't mind transferring billions of dollars out of hardworking New York taxpayers' pockets, to pay the medical bills, education costs, and social service budgets, in order to meet the "needs" of illegal immigrants (and help swell the 1199 membership). There are so many things wrong with Pataki's sort of pandering on immigration, that I could write a book ... but someone already has: Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores, by Michelle Malkin.
Pataki has accomplishments to brag about on the health care front, too. Since getting elected in 1994, he has vastly expanded New York State's Child Health Plus program (instituted in 1991 under socialist Gov. Mario Cuomo), which provides health care to uninsured children. Under Mario Cuomo, few people knew about Child Health Plus. Under George Pataki, the program has been widely advertised on TV, the age limit for eligibility extended from 16 to 19, and as State Health Department spokesman John Signor bragged to Toogood Reports, "One other unique thing that, that the Governor has done, is, uh, he's providing I think it's in the area of about $20 million that funds um, over a two-year period more than thirty community-based organizations. They're facilitated-enrollment organizations, and they basically go out and seek out, um, uninsured New Yorkers. They go out into community centers, they go to grocery stores, they go to, you know, social centers, and actually look for people who are uninsured to enroll them in these programs. No other state has put, you know, forth those types of resources to go out and find uninsured and enroll them in health care programs, and New York's governor" is responsible for that.
According to Signor, the current budget for Child Health Plus is $1 billion, under a 65 percent federal/35 percent state funding formula. (This year, however, Signor told me that New York State got additional federal money, because other states did not spend all of theirs. In today's socialist state, there are incentives to waste taxpayers' money.) Five-hundred-thousand children are enrolled, which comes out to $2,000 per child per year.
In February, 2002, Pataki introduced the program, Family Health Plus, to cover uninsured parents; 120,000 members are currently covered. At web time, Signor had not gotten back to me with budget numbers, but based on the costs of Child Health Plus, $200 million is a conservative estimate of Family Health Plus' yearly price tag.
As someone who enjoyed health insurance longer in a foreign country (the former West Germany) than I have in my own, I'm not going to just sneer at this program, which is geared to the working poor, whose employers usually provide no health benefits. And yet, who is supposed to pay for it?
When I attended university in West Germany from 1980-1985, I enjoyed wonderful health care, because my fellow taxpayers (I worked and paid taxes, too, but much less than they did) subsidized at least ninety cents of every dollar in health care I received. (They subsidized my dorm room and cafeteria meals, too.) And yet, in retrospect, it was wrong for the West German government to expect its citizens to subsidize foreign students.
With George Pataki's health programs, the question similarly is, who pays for it? And the answer, again, is hard-working, already overtaxed, New York State taxpayers.
Governor Pataki is also an environmentalist. You have to keep in mind, that New York State has been going backwards industrially for over fifty years. In New York, we measure job losses not in the thousands, but the millions. Much of upstate New York is a land of pristine ... poverty.
But I guess that as a socialist, it makes sense for Pataki to embrace environmentalism. Oops, I just remembered: He calls himself a conservative. Indeed, Pataki's attack ads mocked Independence Party candidate Tom Golisano's claim (which I don't recall him ever making) to be a "conservative," by noting, for example, Golisano's support of "legalizing" marijuana. In fact, Golisano had noted in some of his campaign ads, that New York had passed, but never implemented a law permitting the medical use of marijuana. He promised to implement the law.
More importantly, Golisano promised to slash the state budget. New York State presently has a budget deficit of $10-12 billion (which is not to be confused with New York City's $7 billion municipal budget deficit – $1 billion immediately, and $6 billion for the coming fiscal year). The state deficit would be another $500 million or so higher, were it not for the creative methods for slashing the welfare rolls Rudy Giuliani employed during his mayoralty (1994-2001), which included transferring tens of thousands of state-subsidized welfare clients to more generous, federal, supplemental security income.
If George Pataki continues being so "conservative," he will bankrupt the state long before he leaves office in January, 2007.
New York socialists and blacks were upset that state comptroller Carl McCall, the first black Democrat gubernatorial candidate ever was beaten so soundly. Had they only been concerned that a socialist win, however, they would have been perfectly content with the outcome.
In case you think New York is unique, consider that all 50 states have combined deficits of $50 billion. (That is a wholly separate matter from our national debt of $6,276,339,199,671.43 – that's not a typo, it's $6.27 TRILLION – as of Wednesday morning, which averages out to $21,728.47 per every one of America's approximately 289 million citizens, or about $86,000 per family. But we're not supposed to talk about that.)
George Pataki's political style resembles that of another man who, according to the Democrat Party/media, is a dangerous far-right-winger: President George W. Bush.
George W. Bush is also notorious for pandering to Hispanic immigrants in his own brand of lousy Spanish. He supports so-called bilingual education, prior to 911 he was ready to write Mexican President Vicente Fox a blank check, in granting amnesty to, er I mean "regularizing," millions of Mexican illegal immigrants, and in the wake of a couple hundred Haitians' recent attempt to sneak into Florida, called on Americans to treat illegals with "respect." Bush is willing to soak taxpayers for billions in support of illegals. Indeed, according to economic policy analyst and self-described "Cuban refugee" George Borjas, author of Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, illegal immigrants cost Americans $70 billion per year, or $1,000 per family.
Not too long ago, out-of-power Republicans drooled over the prospect of shutting down the Department of Education, which has no reason for existence at the federal level, and which is one of the most pernicious federal agencies. (I know, I know, most federal departments have no reason for being, but one thing at a time.) With a fiscal year 2002 budget of $147.9 billion, the Department of Education costs every American family an average of $2,000, IN ADDITION to the local and state taxes we pay for education (through our property taxes, for example). The U.S. Department of Education is an affirmative action and reparations mill, spending billions on cognitively worthless programs (e.g., Head Start), others that actively retard children's development (e.g., bilingual education), and on illegally subsidizing racist, black colleges and universities, private (e.g., Howard) and public alike. The Department also imposes every type of pedagogical snake oil on local school districts. (For a different index of Education's dangerous influence, a google search for "U.S. Department of Education" turned up 740,000 entries, 11,175 of which referred solely to "budget.")
According to Charlene Hoffman of the National Center for Education Statistics, federal education spending rose "$85.1 billion, or 136 percent," between fiscal years 1990 and 2002. Hoffman adds that, "After adjusting for inflation, federal support for education increased 77 percent between FY 1990 and FY 2002."
Rather than shutting down Education, George Bush is shoveling yet more money its way, and making it even more powerful. He wants Education to impose national standards. Heaven help us!
Consider too the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, a sinkhole of racism and obstructionism, chaired by race hoaxer Mary Frances Berry. The republican thing to do would be to eliminate the Commission; George Bush's Republican way is to seat a black Republican commissioner. Instead of eliminating affirmative action and racial strongholds, 'We take care of "our" blacks, as opposed to "their" blacks.'
Note that the spendthrift ways I barely touched on don't take account of the catastrophic spending that will go into the war on, and occupation of Iraq, and any additional military campaigns we may prosecute during the Bush presidency.
Republicans are drunk on last week's successes at holding the House and taking back the Senate; FReepers at FreeRepublic have seen the election as a referendum on Republican values, and have been talking about finishing off the Democrat Party as a political force in America.
On the left, a lot of folks believe the FReepers-eye view of the Republican Party. The New York Times wrings its hands over the danger of the Republicans now installing "ideologically extreme" judges, and seeks for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a pre-emptive veto right before prospective federal judges are even nominated. The Times editorial promoting this view neglected to mention that the Democrat Party had for the past two years conspired to violate the President's Constitutional prerogative to fill vacancies on the federal bench. And Times columnist Bob Herbert, perhaps having drunk whatever my FReeper buddies were into, has written that "Bill Clinton at his most devious was never as sly or as cunning (or as politically effective) as the Republican Party has become.
"I think of the G.O.P. as the costume party. It wears a sunny mask, which conceals a reality that is far more ideological, far more extreme, than most Americans realize." [As opposed to the compassionate party of race war. N.S.]
"Among the less meaningful questions being asked in Washington is whether the Republicans, having won control of the Senate and strengthened their hold on the House, will now go too far and outpace their mandate. My question is: Where have you been? In a nation that is divided almost 50-50 politically, the Republicans flew past their mandate a long time ago." [There's that "mandate" crap again, which was originally created two years ago as Plan B, when the Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax didn't work.]
"Driven by its right wing and aided immeasurably by George W. Bush's genial smile, the G.O.P. is putting in place profoundly conservative policies that will hamper progressive efforts for decades to come, no matter what happens in upcoming elections."
In case Bob Herbert and the Times' editorial board's hyperbole sound over the top, consider PBS' Bill Moyers:
"... for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government - the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary - is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.
"That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.
"It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.
"It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.
"And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.
"And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?
"So it is a heady time in Washington - a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.
"Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback."
Says the man who has made millions on public television via "the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich."
The reality is that – the FReepers notwithstanding – the election was won not through any appeal to "Republican values," but through the political and campaigning skill of George W. Bush, and the admiration that millions of Americans feel for him. In spite of my criticisms of him, I too like and admire my President, who is as magnanimous in dealing with his domestic opponents, as he is resolute and cunning in dealing with America's foreign enemies. But most Americans do not believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism, unless it means cutting their neighbor's pork out of the budget.
And Bill Moyers and the gang at the New York Times notwithstanding, George W. Bush is, in practice, more "liberal" than their beloved Bubba ever was.
George W. Bush is a guns-AND-butter Republican, a big-tent, Evangelical neo-conservative. Big Tent Republicanism may well prove more expensive than socialism. For on the strength of Bill Clinton's charm, socialist bona fides, and the irrational adulation black folks showered on him, Clinton was able to get away with fiscal conservatism (by today's standards, anyway), and had to bribe only Democrats. Conversely, Bush's Big Tent Republicanism throws fiscal discipline to the wind, and bribes not only Republican but Democrat constituencies, as well.
And so, the Republicans won alright, but the question is: What did they win?
Editor's Note: In the November 12 edition of the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, James Taranto erroneously credited Daniel Pipes with the insight that America's professors require adult supervision. Nicholas Stix had already expressed that sentiment on October 5 (five weeks before Pipes), in a speech on the Steven Hatfill case at a wonderful conference held by Accuracy in Media in Arlington, Virginia.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Nicholas at adddda@earthlink.net .
California is about 40 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. L.A. is about 50 percent Democrat and 25 percent Republican. That is the way it is.
Both sides decided to drive the turn out down to just he Democrat and Republican bases. Davis spent millions telling the center not to vote for Simon. And Simon spent millions telling the center not to vote for DAvis. The center listened to both of them and took their combined advice.
The center did not vote. In the 2000 Election over 10 million Californians voted. This year just over 6 million voted. Four million people who voted in 2000 did not vote in 2002. That is what dual negative campaigns always do.
When both sides go negative... the vote goes down to the bases. There are more people in the Democratic base than Repubican base.
If you are surprised that more people didn't vote for either candidate than voted for the winner, then you are indeed lacking in common sense. There is a ton of evidence to show what would happen on election day. And it happened just like all the evidence said it would.
Davis knew going in to this race that the center was lost for him. He could not get it. What he tried to do was keep Simon from getting it and he accomplished it. Simon did nothing to try to get the independent voters, so he didn't. All Simon did was drive a few Democrats away from Davis. Simon supporters are shocked that Yellow Dog democrats will vote for a Yellow Dog. They should not be.
As I posted just after the primary, the only way for Simon to win was to ignore Davis and campaign on how Simon would fix the state's problems if elected.
I works like this. A candidate for reelection is a falure. He can't promise success, becuase he has a record of failure. All he can do is claim the other candidate is a failure too. That was the Davis position. If the opposition candidate only talks about how he will fix things the voters are faced with the following. They know one candidate has failed. He says his opponent will fail too. The opponent however claims that if they elect him, he will succeed. Which will independent voters go with? Enough independent voters always go with the candidate that is NOT THROWING MUDD and is PROPOSING FIXES to elect him.
Had Simon done that, he would have gotten at least a million of those independents who did not voter. That would have made the election 3.9 milion Simon 3.6 million Davis.
Davis spent the entire election telling independent voters not to vote for Simon. They did not. Simon spent the entire campaign telling independent voters not to vote for Davis. They did not. They were both very effective, Four million independents took their adivce didn't vote for either candidate.
Tons of Simon suporters on FR did all they could to further the Davis strategy. That was, see to it independents did not have a reason to vote FOR anyone. They were happy trashing Davis. But that will not win an election.
This election proved that there was nothing to be gained by trashing Davis. Davis was already trashed more than any poor Republican could trash him. All it would have taken is for the Republicans to give reasons for independents to vote for the Republicans. They never did it.
Nationaly the Democrats never gave anyone a reason to vote for them. A lot of people didn't. Bush gave people reasons to vote Republican. Lots of them did.
So, what you;re saying is, in New York, you can choose between leftwing (out-of-the-closet) socialism and "rightwing" (closet) socialism.
Not McCall, Cuomo, or Clinton?! or Sharpton, or whoever...
What would your preferred alternative have been, realistically speaking?!
(you have my sympathy, but one must be pragmatic, and I'll always take the "lesser of two evils, with continued attempts at education" scenario over the "crash and burn, and hope true conservatives rise from the ashes" one...the second scenario is not only overly subjective, but also potentially dangerous in assuming a decent Phoenix could rise...)
Yes, precisely.
I believe that'd be an accurate statement.
...& it pains me say that, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.