 |
||||
|
||||
 |
Posted on 12/07/2003 1:43:00 PM PST by bdeaner
Nation & World 12/15/03
By Michael Barone
Choice and accountability
|
Many conservatives are complaining that George W. Bush is a big-government conservative--or not a conservative at all. They complain about the Medicare prescription drug law he and the House and Senate Republican leadership pushed through, the first major expansion of Medicare since 1965. They call him a big spender, noting that discretionary spending has been rising more rapidly than under Bill Clinton. They complain that he pushed through the first education bill giving the federal government a role in setting standards. They complain about the farm bill he signed in 2002 and the energy bill he championed this year.
 |
Cold decisions. To be sure, Bush has made compromises. Congress was unwilling to vote for all of the tax cuts he proposed; he and the Republican leadership made cold decisions and got what they could. (House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas like to say that if you pass a bill by more than one vote, you have given away too much.) Bush gave up early on school vouchers, and it's unclear how strong the state standards will be. The Medicare prescription drug bill contains much less provision for competition than Bush wanted; DeLay at one point excluded Thomas from the conference committee to whittle the provision down. It's not clear that the bill will lead to the choice-and-accountability healthcare system that conservatives like Thomas and former Speaker Newt Gingrich want.
Bush has redefined conservatism. It is now not the process of cutting government and devolving powers; it is the process of installing choice and accountability into government even at the cost of allowing it to grow. This is an attempt to move government in the same direction as the private sector, which now offers much more in the way of choice and accountability than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when big corporations and big unions established wage rates, when you worked for one company until age 65 and then depended on that one company and Social Security for your retirement income.
What is next on Bush's list? Social Security. In the past quarter century the private sector has moved from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution pensions. Defined-benefit pensions gave you little choice and no accountability: If the LTV Steel pension fund or the United Mine Workers hospital fund went belly up, you were out of luck (or lobbying Congress for a federal bailout). With defined-contribution pensions, you make the choice of how to invest the money in your 401(k), and you are accountable for the results.
Bush campaigned for Social Security individual investment accounts in 2000 but, with many congressional Republicans queasy, has not mentioned them much since. I think he is going to return to the issue next month and make Social Security a major issue in the campaign. Most proposals have talked of letting you invest 2 percent of your 12.4 percent Social Security tax in the market. But the nonpartisan chief actuary of the Social Security Administration has just costed out a proposal to let you invest 6.4 percent and concluded that it would leave the system sound "through 2077 and beyond." Bush's Social Security appointees have been keeping in close touch with the leaders of the AARP, whose support was critical in passing the Medicare bill. Individual investment accounts would move America toward more choice and accountability, away from dependence on big institutions and toward more independence and self-reliance. That is Bush's brand of conservatism, and it is in line with changes in the character of the country.
For president? You're naive if you think any third party candidate can get elected, and the two mainstream parties won't give us true conservatives. The people won't stand for it. They want their entitlements, and politicians are only to happy to pander to them. Do you really think a candidate who says "I'm going to take away your medicaid" can get elected? He'd be tar-and-feathered first. Sure, a conservative candidate and a conservative government are we we all want. That's why we're Freepers, but you might as well wish for the moon.
It is one reason I have been so staunchly supportive of the guy.
The only thing he has done so far which has really caused me to howl was signing CFR.
It is clear that Bush did the latter; or at least, to me it is clear.
I am still pretty steamed about it. Changing one's mind is fine and dandy; circumstances change and it is always good to constantly re-evaluate the territory.
What I don't like is the reason he changed his mind on it. It was for political expediency, and I am not sure at all it is going to give him (or conservatives) the political boost for which he was hoping.
Frankly, I don't see a tremendous difference, outside of which things they talk about in speeches.
They both expanded military spending.
They both cut taxes.
And they both accepted government growth to accomplish some of their other priorities.
Take away the waxing philosophic, and I see very similar approaches to governance.
And I happen to appreciate the efforts of both.
I do hope Barone is right about SS reform. President Bush's proposal is inadequate but better than nothing.
Would it be "accepting government growth" if Bill Clinton had done the same thing? Would it be "other priorities" if Bill Clinton had authored the Patriot Act or the Department of Homeland Security?
Reagan tried to eliminate the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy. Bush wants to expand the first and do nothing with the second. And then there's that pesky Homeland Security thing ... You know, the one that, if translated into German might sound an awful lot like Gestapo ...
It's okay if our rights are taken away by a Republican, 'cause we know he'll take good care of 'em.
Bill Clinton also would have been loathe to sign major tax cuts. He never worked so hard in his life to find a way to do them, remember. Bush, who doesn't work quite so hard (if the myths of each man are true) managed to do so. Twice.
And Clinton would never have adopted the philosophy of injecting choice and diversity of approaches into the government monolith. The Democrats realize the risk to their baby; it is a pity that you don't.
As for your illusions to the Gestapo, you are now off in the same land inhabited by George Soros, Moveon, Howard Dean, and his fresh endorsee Howard Dean. I am sure that your adoption of the same demonizing language is coincidental, but it carries no more weight or accuracy when you throw it out than when they do. Try instead to be substantive.
Ummm...the federal government has grown under every single president since George Washington — except for the handful who died in office before having a chance to do much of anything (e.g., William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding).
I think it was horrible legislation, which will in the end harm only the honorable candidates.
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.
