White House, conservatives split on drugs

Washington Times ^ | June 29, 2003 | Donald Lambro

[sarcasm]

A deepening political split over prescription drug benefits divides the White House and conservative activists, who say the issue provoked the most serious rift of George W. Bush's presidency.

Nearly a dozen conservative think tanks and policy groups inside and outside the Beltway have lined up against the $400 billion Medicare-reform package that Mr. Bush appears ready to sign as soon as a bill reaches his desk.

[TLBSHOW]

The problem is, it never gets cleaned up. Bush is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing and for the bulk of Americans, the disguise is working perfectly.

BUMP

[nonliberal]

I agree that the subject is dull but the debate that surrounds it is interesting.

Medicare is a vote-buying scam for the DemocRATic Party. The Pubbies want to prop up this failing "entitlement" in order to win a few votes from old people. Meanwhile, my generation is stuck paying the bill!

[jammer]

RW, just read your profile. "It makes me ill" is something I've been saying continually for 35 years. I actually feel sorry for you: my generation will die off (it's hardest on us, really, because we were really born free--or at least much freer). Your generation, for the most part, is too self-absorbed and poorly educated to even know what they are missing.

But, now, people like you and my son, who really have been taught what losing freedom means and who will live long enough to see overt tyranny emerge--well, as I say, I feel sorry for you. It's gonna' get rough, friend.

[LS]

To an extent, you are right. But the big problem is that people will NOT clean it up until they see a pressing need to do so---or, to use the media cliche, a "crisis." Sad, but that is a fact of life.

Reagan lambasted deficits his whole political life, but eventually had to sign on to them, because there was simply not the national public will to do anything about them. Likewise, Reagan promised to cut DOE and DOEd, but didn't lift a finger against them, because there was not a national "small government" mood.

I'm not so pessimistic as to think people will always think in a welfare mentality, but until the public changes, even the best of leaders can only go so far before it's committing political suicide. Many here think that's being "RINO," but I don't know at what point as an ELECTED official you can NOT give the people what they want. Now, if you look at the poll, the public will soon see that they DON'T WANT this, but that message has to sink in first.

[LS]

No, you aren't right here. Things do get cleaned up when they get to be a big enough mess. Reagan was able to slash the LBJ/NIXON/CARTER taxes; the House GOP forced Clinton to eliminate most welfare; 9/11 has forced us to re-evaluate our INTEL and border issues---maybe not as much as we conservatives like, but it's a start.

Neither SS nor Medicare YET are viewed as a "crisis. When they are, the public will support sensible reforms that privatize most of this . . . but not a day before.

[LS]

"craven political calculation"

Or, you could call it the "handwriting on the wall." No one was going to stop this, and anyone who was in any way viewed as trying was not getting re-elected. Some in the Hosue can get away with it, but not Bush or any state-level candidate. I think there is a time when even good leaders (which I think Bush is) know that there is nothing to be won by fighting certain battles. I think this bill will become law, will be a bad law, and will eventually (like welfare) be thrown out when it becomes a "crisis." Sad, but that's the American mentality.

[LS]

Bush is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing

You need therapy. I don't care if he passes 10 Medicare biills, no "liberal" would have successfully waged a war on terrorism, deposed Saddam, passed THREE tax cuts in three years, PRIVATIZED 1/4 of the federal non-military work force jobs, and issued more Ex. Orders against abortion than Reagan OR BUCHANAN ever conceived of doing.

Your hysteria needs to be tempered with a bath of political reality.

[Darheel]

Free drugs for the elderly- and JAIL for the young.

So goes the war on drugs.

[NittanyLion]

This will destroy the US pharma industry. The government will inevitably begin to set prices on prescriptions, and the Rx companies will be forced to lower R&D investments. Meanwhile, the FDA will continue to increase its regulations, making it that much more difficult to bring drugs to market.

As bad as the additional burden to taxpayers is, the longterm effect on medical innovation will be much more damaging.

[fporretto]

The president is in a no-win situation. He promised this giveaway program during his presidential campaign. He can either go back on his word, losing public credibility, or he can follow through, disappointing the conservative base.

I wouldn't want to be in Dubya's position on this one. He prizes his integrity and the popular appreciation of it. I think he knows the drug bill is a bad idea, but then, I think he knew the farm bill, the steel tariff, and the No Child Left Behind Act were fatally flawed too -- three other campaign promises he felt he had to deliver on.

If you're an honest man, campaign promises can kill you.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[sarcasm]

He promised this giveaway program during his presidential campaign. He can either go back on his word, losing public credibility, or he can follow through, disappointing the conservative base.

He also promised a balanced budget - haven't heard much about that one recently.

[RJCogburn]

Republicans have now embraced the philosophy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Is Karl Marx next?

Only if it will help them get elected. For way too many, it's about power and percs, doncha know.

[nyconse]

Bush did promise this. However, I still think there is a GOP poison pill in this bill. It leaves the door open for Privatization of the whole system. Keep in mind, this bill is backloaded (2006). If the GOP wins decisively in 2004, this bill can be changed/improved. If the Democrats win it won't matter. How come some of you are so nasty about Bush supporters (a day in the life of Bush)? We could do a lot worse than George Bush. Read Ann Coulter's book. It is shocking. Maybe I don't always agree with President Bush, but I am not voting for any Democrats- I can tell you that. I know some of you are Libertarians, but you might as well vote for a Democrat as vote for a Libertarian candidate (same result): elects Democrats.

[nyconse]

Bush promised this during his campaign. Those of you who voted for him knew he would do this. How is he a liar? He did what he said he would.

[virgil]

Right now the drug regulations are so restrictive that they make it difficult to import drugs into this country. They'll just move pharmaceutical operations to Mexico or Indonesia or India or China. Then one day the government will cry "emergency!" So, then, the FDA will curtail regulations to make it easier to import drugs from who knows where, by who knows who, with who knows what. Or they can just replace the highly skilled American workforce in the industry right now with amnestied Mexicans. That should qualify the pharma industry for a regulatory break in the eyes of the gov't.

[fporretto]

Good heavens, my man, no one here would vote for any Democrat since Grover Cleveland! But only votes for Democrats can elect Democrats. No, the choice is between supporting the GOP candidate and not supporting him.

If the Republican candidates looks as if he'd do about as much harm as the Democrat, I'll vote for neither, or for some third-party candidate if the itch is unendurable. The principle is truth-in-labeling and the consequences of not insisting on it. I won't reward deceit. If evil gets to costume itself as virtue, it will fool a lot of people about the real nature of virtue and how well it works.

Therefore, in 1992, faced with a GOP candidate who'd broken his only campaign promise, I stayed home. In 1996, faced with a GOP candidate who didn't know anything except subsidies for Kansas farmers and raising taxes to pay for welfare-state boondoggles, I stayed home. Faced with a GOP candidate who promised drug benefits, tariffs, and a number of other redistributionist steps, I stayed home in 2000 as well. No one could have anticipated Black Tuesday.

That having been said, I plan to support Dubya in 2004. He's proved to be a better man than he first appeared, far better than his father. Regarding his tendeicies toward protectionism and welfare statism, I guess I'll just swallow hard and try to smile. He understands the requirements of national defense, and his word is good. That will be sufficient.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[xdem]

Your hysteria needs to be tempered with a bath of political reality.

I will not vote for "W" if he signs this bill. I have to pay for my pharmeceuticals out of pocket. This program will tremendously raise costs for me.

This bill will also stunt pharmeceutical R&D.

Once again, our cowardly president proves he's no leader, only a politican reading poll numbers and trying to avoid a fight.

[RJCogburn]

farm bill, the steel tariff, and the No Child Left Behind Act were fatally flawed too -- three other campaign promises he felt he had to deliver on.

I think, if memory serves, the final form of those bills (maybe not the steel tarrifs) was rather unlike what he 'promised' but he embraced them anyway.

[NittanyLion]

My prediction is that China will close the pharmaceutical gap with the US more quickly than they otherwise might, and it wouldn't surprise me if they overtake us at some point.

No one can say for certain that this wouldn't happen in the absence of this bill, but these events will most certainly damage US companies' ability to compete.

[RJCogburn]

I am fascinated how the Bushbots are able to rationalize, explain away, some of Bush's actions...and not maliciously, they really believe it.

Just an interesting phenomenon.