Posted on 10/11/2005 7:09:03 PM PDT by Conservative Firster
Though widely viewed as an arch conservative in the major media, Bruce Bartlett increasingly finds himself alienated from the president of his party. Bush's policies, he warns, have been anything but conservative.
Bartlett faults Bush for moving away from free trade, adopting Keynesian economic theories, increasing government regulation and doing an extremely poor job of developing and selling conservative initiatives, such as Social Security reform. As such, George W. Bush, he says, has been a disaster for conservatism. Criticism of Bush from the right has largely been confined to fringe elements outside the mainstream of the conservative movement. Bartlett is the first from within the conservative mainstream to make the case that Bush is not "one of us" and does not deserve conservatives' support. As the next presidential election looms, Bartlett warns, a new standard bearer must be found who will correct the many errors of this administration and get America's fiscal house in order.
After September 11, America declared war on Islamic militancy that required huge new expenditures on defense. In the face of this, it was folly, says Bartlett, to introduce the Medicare drug benefit, a middle class entitlement program that, according to its own actuaries, burdens the American taxpayer with a new $18.2 trillion debt, an amount much larger even than the (once-) dreaded Social Security crisis. To pay for this vast new expansion of the welfare state, Bartlett warns, taxes can only go up—way up. Getting sufficient revenue out of our current tax system will be futile, making something like a European-style value added tax a near-certainty. It is noteworthy that Governor Bush once appointed a Texas tax reform commission that recommended a VAT, which he then supported.
On top of the Medicare drug benefit, Bush has rammed through huge expansions of federal education and agriculture programs. He has done nothing to restrain Congress's pork barrel spending and is the first president since James Garfield not to veto a single bill.
The administration's massive increases in government spending, Bartlett says, makes a sharp increase in taxes inevitable. There are many reasons to believe that a financial crisis may be brewing as a result. The Federal Reserve, for instance, is raising interest rates, which will put pressure on the stock and bond markets, and eventually prick the housing bubble, just as Fed tightening ultimately popped the stock market bubble of the late 1990's. When this happens, Washington policymakers who have been ignoring the budget deficit for years will suddenly see deficit reduction as the only way of restoring confidence. At this point, Bush will have to reverse course on taxes and spending.
Ward, I'm worried about the swampster. It's been over a month since he was put on hold. Might this mean his banning is permanent? God, I hope not, the guy is a barrel of laughs!
"...Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn’t want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it. . . . But that may have cut it by 80 percent right there."
Source: Focus On The Family - October 11, 2005
I heard that too, and I don't blame him.
Spot on.
I think there's a strain within conservatism that has grown fat and sloppy, as well as self-righteous. You're right that they reflect a kind of reactionary "right wing" that existed in the 1930s (I'd set them also in the '40s and '50s), that simply was a dour group that opposed everything. Of course, the main reason that conservatism "won" under Reagan, and then under the expansion of the Reagan revolution in '94, was that conservativism under Reagan had a smiling face, and a positive attitude. It stood FOR something, not simply against everything. Sadly, the Great Man is gone, and the further we get away from his place in history, conservatism will mutate back into its primordial form, where it will be taken over by the grumps and the kooks.
Personally, outside of God I believe that nothing is eternal and absolute. Look at liberalism -- it's pretty much dead, mainly because it failed to offer anything relevant to our times. In the void that was left, liberalism has been taken over by the fanatics. I suppose in time, 20th Century conservatism will become a spent force, will grow increasingly irrelevant, and will itself be taken over by its own fanatics. We constantly need to be shifting with the times, adjusting to new realities -- essentially, we need to maintain a good dose of pragmatism if we are to remain fresh, relevant, and viable. But the idea that even conservatism needs to change in order to survive runs counter to the concept of "conservatism," and there are some (and we see them here) who are intent on taking conservatism back to the glory days of the mid-20th Century, when conservatism was a plaything among a small cohort of reactionaries and kooks. As the battle rages over the soul of conservatism, it remains to be seen in each election cycle whether there's a soul there to battle over.
Being that you've spent the last few days lecturing people on the Constitution (no set career path for SCOTUS justice), kindly explain how the Constitution authorizes federal involvement with education.
Ask a still living President Ronald Reagan advisor, since it was his campaign promise to get rid of the education dept.
Oh BTW, if it wasn't for the education dept, tom tancredo wouldn't have a resume.
So you don't have an answer in other words? You're cool with unconstitutional programs?
Uh Reagan made a campaign promise to get rid of the education dept. He did not.
GW Bush did not make such a promise.
Kinda of stalemate there, but I believe that GW Bush is making more headway in education reform since the NEA and ted kennedy, hate him more, especially after "no child left behind".
It is very rare for a Senator(kennedy) to trash his own bill.
I'm not looking to discuss the success or lack therof of NCLB nor campagn promises by any candidate. I'm wondering if you personally feel that NCLB is a program that passes Constitutional muster.
Oh but wait a minute, it's your alls ilk who are crying "betrayal" and Reagan betrayed you by not getting rid of the education dept.
Shouldn't your tagline be, "Bork Reagan's legacy".
BTW, Reagan also appointed O'Connor and Kennedy, another stake in your uber Bush haters hearts.
AMEN!!!
You know me. I'm a creepy libertarian individualist. I don't have an ilk. I shall take your 3 consecutive dodges at my question as a concession that you support NCLB even though you cannot cite Constitutional authority for it. I don't see why you're embarrassed to admit it. There are plenty of freepers who feel the same.
Uh maybe if you use would your noggin there and not rely on Libertarian political dogma, you would see that GW Bush is reforming the education system bit by bit, and the libs like the NEA and ted kennedy hate it.
Dane, I agree with you on that 100%. My problem with NCLB is that I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes such a thing. If you can convince me of this one last point, you'll have completely brought me over to your side on this issue.
Also, do me a favor and kill the capital L in the future. I think the Libertarian Party is douchey and effective as Ben Rothlessberger's knee.
Actual results mean nothing to you. Kinda of like a liberal, it's the ideal that is uber alles.
PING!
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.