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 upway 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.
Duly noted. Reagan also nominated Kennedy to the SC.
Free trade is corporatist, not conservative.
PresReagan floated the idea of privatizing SS more then once. As early as 1964 and again in 1976 and 1980. It went nowhere back then, just as it went nowhere today when PresBush sent up his trial balloon. It's obvious Bush got his idea for personal SS accounts from the idea originally offered up by Reagan.
Social Security was in deep trouble when Reagan took office. He appointed Alan Greenspan to head up a SS reform commission, to come up with a plan to make SS solvent again. The Greenspan commission advised Reagan that SS rates be raised, benefits be cut and the retirement age increased. Reagan endorsed the recommendations of the bipartistian commission. The idea of voluntary personal accounts was looked into by the Greenspan commission, but was never considered a viable solution since it was impossible to get enough political agreement at the time.
Fact. SS is the third rail of American politics and right now privatization is a dead idea.
As for amnesty. Reagan did sign the IRCA of 1986 and it was a mistake to do so. However, if the IRCA was enforced and employers were prosecuted and punished for hiring illegals, the one time amnesty deal would have been just that. A one time amnesty for illegals. But it wasn't enforced.
BUMP TO THE TOP, M2C.
- - - - -
These "conservatives" are a pretty exclusive bunch, and a pretty exclusionary bunch as well. Their view of the world is fairly narrow; they are essentially pessimistic about everything; they are strident in their attitudes and obnoxious in their behavior. But, I guess, they think the glory days of conservatism were when conservatism was narrow, exclusive, strident and obnoxious.
You have it right. The small segment who continue to claim they're "the base" while they seek to destroy the good works and progress we have made.
Note please, that the most venomous and vociferous here are '04 sign-on's and then think back to the threats from DU and moveon.orgie to infiltrate.
Ms. Miers will get her hearing. She deserves that much. But all the clamor really isn't about her. It's about destroying GWB who they cannot control. And thank God for that.
Agree ... and you know what ... come 08 when the next election comes around .. their pick still won't get elected and they will still itch and moan
They did it back when Reagan was President and they are still doing it now
It's a never ending cycle
I wouldn't want to say all, of course, but a great many of those who are always caterwauling about how GWB "betrayed" conservatives, or how he's really a Democrat lite, and so on, are not conservatives at all. Most are hard-right reactionaries from a strain that saw its peak in the 1930's. Pat Buchanan is, indeed, the most well-known among them.
(A few here on FR probably are really Dems pretending to be upset conservatives just to stir the pot and sow division.)
Many, if not all of the Right-wing punditocracy who have been screaming about this nomination are ticked because GWB didn't do what they expected -- even demanded. Ann Coulter is probably the most rabid of them, although Kristol is a smarmy, sly creep who has always been anti-Bush.
Coulter bitterly opposed Roberts, then had the gall to turn around and hold up Roberts as the standard Miers simply could not meet. Worse, she ranted that the President selected Miers because he was "vindictive." In her fevered imagination, GWB was annoyed because "conservatives" shot down Al Gonzalez for the court, so he turned around and picked a worse version of Gonzalez out of spite. That's so totally absurd that it makes me question Coulter's intelligence.
But you're right. This fight is not about Miers. It's about who gets to control the "conservative" agenda going forward.
First it isn't blanket amnesty and second hyperbole seems to be your strong suit.
Actually, I don't think Bush`s proposal will see the light of day. The Prez doesn't want real immigration reform. Bush wants the Hispanic vote to go with the GOP in 2006 and he wants to keep appeasing the business contingent of the GOP by allowing an endless flow of cheap labor into the US illegally.
That is probably one of the better posts I've seen this week..
Corporate tax. He didn't like it at all but was promised a 3 to 1 spending offset from the Dems if he went along with the tax. The Dems of course reneged and RR learned a lesson. So stop trying to paint RR as a tax hiker. He brought the individual tax down more than any past or present POTUS.
Reagan era facts:
Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record
The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
A point many nowadays forget. Reagan came into office wanting to disband the departments of energy and education. He wasn't successful. A Democrat house of reps, and for the most part, senate, seen to that.
GWB didn't/doesn't have that problem. Even with a GOP majority in both houses of congress. GWB, with the help of Teddy Kennedy, seen that the largest bill in history for education expenditures was passed. (I didn't know metal detectors were that expensive!)
GWB not only took his place in the Oval Office as one not interested in abolishing the federal, and unConstitutional, bureaucracy, he led the way in expanding it.
Blah, blah, blah, same old distortion.
Thank you for proving our point. It's really GWB you wish to damage, '04 sign-on.
Then tell me why the NEA and ted kennedy now hate the NCLB act.
I can tell you why because it involves standards, and oh yeah BTW, GW Bush has proposed school vouchers for hurricane victims and no doubt the NEA will be against that.
Yeah, because he could do the math...
...unlike Dubya, who treats Federal expenditures and debts like he's Santa Claus.
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.