Bush Signs Sweeping Medicare Bill That Includes Drug Benefit

New York Times via yahoo ^ | December 8, 2003 | CHRISTINE HAUSER The New York Times

[FirstPrinciple]

That is what people do not realize. No govt entitlement program has ever been reversed. In 1967, they projected that the cost of Medicare in 1990 would be 29 billion. Actual cost was 250 billion. There is no point in forecasting govt spending, especially on entitlement programs. This bill alone will place enormous tax liabilities in the future which will kill any tax reform in the future.

[Southack]

"Still padding your list, I see. GWB didn't ban PBA, the Congress did that.....but you knew that, didn't you? And so on...."

Nonsense, Bush did it.

Congress passed bans on Partial Birth Abortion TWICE in the 1990's, only to have those bills vetoed, therefore never becoming law.

President Bush is the first to sign the Partial Birth Abortion bill into law, so give credit where it is due (something that seems to be rather difficult for you 3rd Party types).

[RJCogburn]

This person is impossible to argue with.

Yes, they are making kneepads with elephamts as well as donkeys.

[RJCogburn]

so give credit where it is due (something that seems to be rather difficult for you 3rd Party types).

Oh, I do give him credit for signing, and for tax cuts, and for the OSHA regulations reversal and other stuff. I voted for him in 2000 which I guess makes me a first party type.

Those actions, and others that I applaude just make his disasterous domestic performance all the more disappointing.

[Southack]

Banning Partial Birth Abortion, signing two laws to arm pilots, reforming Medicare with a half dozen Privatization options, cutting our income taxes so much that a family of four earning forty thousand per year only pays fourty-five Dollars per year in federal income taxes, giving three pay raises to our military, and CONSTRUCTING our ABM nuclear defense systems are a "domestic disaster" to you?!

[RJCogburn]

Expanding the non defense government at a level not seen since LBJ is not a disaster to you?

[Southack]

The increased spending is a pure beast, but at least we aren't getting short-changed. Every policy that we want, we've gotten.

Of course getting what you want passed over a divided Senate is always costly. Who would have thought otherwise? Even so, complaints about the increased spending have legitimacy, at least until those complaints delve into the netherworld of claims that we haven't gotten Conservative policies passed, among other such nonsense.

[snopercod]

This is off topic, but you mentioned arming pilots.

Bush opposed this all along, and only signed it reluctantly. Since then, he has done everything possible to scuttle the program. Source (written only two months ago): P.C. Air Security When will our pilots be armed? By John R. Lott Jr.

UNDERMINING THE PROGRAM

Unfortunately, despite Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge recently voicing public support for arming pilots, the TSA has fought the program at every turn. After two years since the first attacks and two laws passed overwhelmingly by Congress to start training pilots, only about 200 out of over 100,000 commercial passenger pilots are licensed to carry guns.

Following what seemed like a successful first class of pilots this spring, the TSA fired the head of the firearms training academy, Willie Ellison, for "unacceptable performance and conduct."

Ellison, who won the praise of the students, was reprimanded for holding a graduation dinner for the first graduation class and giving them baseball caps with the program logo.

The training facility was closed down and relocated immediately after the first class, prompting Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee, to complain that the closing appeared to be "just another attempt to disrupt the program."

On top of all the delays, the administration has done what it can to discourage pilots from even applying for the armed-pilot program.

The intrusive application form pilots are required to fill out warns them that the information obtained by the Transportation Security Administration is "not limited to [the pilot's] academic, residential, achievement, performance, attendance, disciplinary, employment history, criminal history record information, and financial and credit information."

[GodBlessUSA]

I’m not saying a Libertarian would not be successful with our security. I do prefer less government in our lives, as well. However, a Libertarian’s probability to win is very slim (maybe someday in the future). This race is between Bush and whoever the democrat is that runs. Any third party won’t get a majority. You get the point I’m making with the Perot factor. Whether Bush Sr. blew some policy issues is not the point. It was between Bush Sr. and Clinton. The better man did not win due to the voter’s turn out for Perot. Then we ended up with 8 years of defense neglect, shame and corruption because people wanted to prove a point to Bush. It's not worth it. Actually, I consider it very dangerous right now.

[Southack]

"Bush opposed this all along, and only signed it reluctantly."

Nonsense. The news media *claimed* that Bush was against *both* bills that armed pilots, yet President Bush proceeded to sign BOTH of those bills into law.

And while the press claimed that Bush was against it, the President himself *never* even once said that he was against either bill.

Moreover, President Bush FIRED the DoT senior employee who was holding up the first pro-gun-law from actually arming pilots, and Mineta suddenly "saw the light" after that.

Lets not fall for the liberal media's repeated tactic of claiming that Conservatives are divided, shall we!

[FirstPrinciple]

What you are saying is that we should vote Republican no matter what happens. If that is the case, then a Libertarian will never win, ever. For those dissatisfied with the Republican party, we should be considering alternatives to build a political force that will be a challenge to the Republicans so that they start paying attention to us.

[snopercod]

I'm sensitive to the media distorting the facts, but Bush's opposition to arming pilots was widely reported. Example:

President asks for alternative to arming pilots

By William M. Welch and Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY
09/27/2001

President Bush plans to announce today a series of security steps intended to restore public confidence in commercial air travel, including strengthening cockpit doors to thwart hijackers, White House and congressional officials said Wednesday. During a visit to Chicago's O'Hare airport, Bush also will call for increasing the number of armed air marshals to cover most domestic flights and increased federal control of airport security checks of baggage and passengers, they said. Bush will emphasize the need for federal guidelines for airport screening, but he will stop short of making the screeners federal employees, the officials said. He will call for government testing, supervision and monitoring.

[snip]

Bush indicated on Wednesday that he is cool to a controversial idea, proposed by the 67,000-member Air Line Pilots Association union, to allow cockpit crews to carry handguns. Asked whether he supports arming pilots, Bush said, "There may be better ways to do it than that, but I'm open for any suggestion."

Regardless, President Bush - as usual - adopted the big government solution when he had a perfect opportunity to do otherwise.

[FirstPrinciple]

Don't forget unionizing the TSA, the security people at the airport. They are the most incompetent sorry bunch I have ever seen. If they catch anyone stealing donuts from the airport Krispy Kreme, I will be pleasantly surprised. And then Bush rewarded them by letting these incompetent idiots to be unionized. Where do I start with my disappointments? Hopefully I will be able to stop soon.

[GodBlessUSA]

I certainly do miss President Ronald Reagan! We need another Ronnie!!

No, I'm not saying that at all. Who is the Libertarian running? Does he have enough money and exposure to win the election? I'm a political junkie and I've yet to hear of someone who could pull it off. I don't want to gamble on the security of our nation, especially now. In this election, yes to me, it's Republican vs. Democrat, that will be the winner of the White House. There are no other viable choices right now that would even be close to a win. Hopefully, in the future, that will change. I just don't see it in the coming election. There's too much danger right now to even try it. It wouldn’t be worth the chance. Could you imagine President Howard Dean. Very Scary!

[FirstPrinciple]

A wise man once said, "If you wait till tomorrow to do the wise thing, then tomorrow will never arrive."

[itsahoot]

I say again this issue will jump up and bite us in the ASS, Just give the tax paying citizens the same health care that we give the illegals, or better yet the same coverage our congress Critters enjoy.

This is a bait and switch solution that takes more away than it and gives. I predict we will see a Rostankowski replay on this issue. But that is just my opinion.

[snopercod]

Rostankowski replay

Help me out here. I remember the man, but am at a loss as to your reference.

[GodBlessUSA]

I really do understand your point. I’m also disappointed in the republican party. I’m a true conservative, myself. Presently, there’s too much spending and not enough back bone. It’s not all Bush’s fault. There are way too many Rinos in office. However should the Libertarians want to run someone for President, they need to gain influence. It would mean winning elections of Senators and Congressmen in big numbers. Then the Libertarian Party would gradually grow, get exposure, gain the support, influence (and money) they do require to run someone for President. There is no way by the election 2004, only 12.5 months away, is a Libertarian going to be elected by the American people. Many probably don’t even know what a Libertarian is.

Hence, the no vote for Bush will turn out to be a vote for the Democrats. A Democrat as President at this critical time is really one of my biggest fears, as it should be. Sad but it's the reality of the situation at the present time.

[FirstPrinciple]

I am not unrealistic in my expectations. I know that a Libertarian will not win in 04 almost surely. But, the point is if I want to stick to my guns, I cannot wait for fair weather. You have to make the case to the Republicans that conservatives will not be taken for granted. If every four years is not a good time for doing it, then good time will never roll along.

[Southack]

"Asked whether he supports arming pilots, Bush said, "There may be better ways to do it than that, but I'm open for any suggestion."

Now, didn't *you* claim that Bush literally OPPOSED arming pilots? Not merely looking for potential better bills, mind you, but actually opposing it altogether. You know, something that he did TWICE by signing two different bills that did that very thing?!

Where do people get off claiming that Bush is AGAINST bills that he signs into law?

I can't tell you how many gullible posters have claimed that Bush was against arming pilots, even though NONE of them can ever quote Bush himself saying that he was against it even for a moment, much less who can explain why President Bush signed TWO FREAKING BILLS INTO LAW that ARMED PILOTS.

Oh, he was just against it, take our word for it, or take the liberal news media's word for it, you all claim.

Rubbish.