Posted on 01/31/2004 6:27:08 PM PST by softengine
Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.
Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.
As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.
We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.
President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.
So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.
Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.
Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.
Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.
CPAC is a pretty important political event. For him to basically blow off feedback, especially when in past years, Mark Racicot took the time to answer questions at the same annual event speaks volumes.
AFA JR goes, I haven't read his magnum opus on it (last i looked it was over 1000 posts) and we may agree or disagree to some point. I still consider him a friend. He doesn't go around saying "my way or the highway" the way some here would.
I don't think i really need to spell this out any further... Your post was insulting.
My point is that liberal influence has been creeping in and taking out our country's core and core values for decades. It will take decades of concentrated, focused committment and patience to turn that around in a lasting way.
Than America was attacked. And nothing was or will ever be exactly the same again. Perhaps this explanation from John Barry, Chief Economist from the Tax Foundation, about the 04 budget will provide you some explanations and accurate comparisons.
The President’s FY2004 Budget in Perspective
President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget, released yesterday by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requests $2.2 trillion in total spending and anticipates $1.9 trillion in total receipts. In other terms, based on administration forecasts, federal spending will be 19.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and receipts will total 17.0 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2004. Spending of $2.2 trillion represents a 2.2 percent increase over the administration’s most recent estimates for the current fiscal year and a 25.3 percent increase compared to a decade ago, fiscal year 1994, after adjusting for inflation. The $1.9 trillion in anticipated collections represents a 2.7 percent increase over the administration’s most recent estimate for the current fiscal year and a 25.5 percent increase compared to a decade ago. Figure 1 shows federal outlays and receipts as a percentage of GDP since 1940.
The administration’s budget shows a current year (fiscal year 2003) net deficit of $304.2 billion and a net deficit of $307.4 billion in fiscal year 2004. The budget shows continued deficits through at least 2008. The deficits over this period will increase outstanding debt held by the public from an estimated $3.9 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2003 to an estimated $5.0 trillion in 2008. Measured as a percentage of GDP, debt held by the public is expected to decline from 36.1 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2003 to 36.4 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008.
It is important to put the current budget proposal into historical context. To do so, it is necessary to translate current spending and revenue proposals into real terms either by adjusting for inflation or by expressing the proposal in terms of the broader economy. Looking merely at the budget in nominal terms that do not account for inflation or economic growth is misleading and inaccurate. The table below contains information about the current budget in the context of the post-World War II era and the past three administrations. Highlights include:
The President’s budget proposes spending $390.4 billion on defense related activities in FY 2004. This amounts to 17.5 percent of all spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.
-This level is roughly the same as defense spending was in 1996, which amounted to 17.0 percent of all federal spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.
-Defense spending in 1987, the height of the Reagan build up, was 28.1 percent of all federal spending and 6.1 percent of GDP.
The President’s budget proposes a fiscal year 2004 budget deficit of $307.4 billion, which is 13.8 percent of all spending and 2.8 percent of GDP.
-This level is roughly the same as the deficit was in 1994, which amounted to 13.9 percent of all spending and 2.9 percent of GDP.
-Deficit spending in 1983, the highest point during the Reagan administration, was 25.7 percent of all spending and 6.0 percent of GDP.
A chart is included but I'm unable to link it here for some reason. A link to the article can be found here.
Prairie
Here's a hint: he wrote that to me.
Somebody else, during the night, took issue with another comment he made TO ME (#212) and it was pulled from this thread by the time I woke up this morning. I asked the Admin Mod to put it back. (thanks btw, AM)
I am not accusing you, hoosiermama, but WHOEVER hit Abuse on that post should have left the right of first complaint TO ME. Things have gotten out of hand on this thread when a non-profane post like that gets yanked, even when the recipient wasn't the least bit offended. And I wasn't.
I can name just as many people who are staying away from some of the more contentious subjects like immigration, because of Bush supporters slinging insults toward those of us who see the guest worker proposal as a complete DISASTER.
Intimidation works both ways. Anyone who doesn't speak their minds anyway needs a gut check.
A. 9-11. (This alone, according to various reports, cost the US Economy roughly $90 billion. (Immediate impact)
B. Increased spending on the Military for a build-up of B.
C. WOT (roughly $150 billion in the last 2 years)
D. Inherited a recession from the previous president.
If these 2 things didn't impact the economy, then nothing would have. Nothing shakes spending by consumers like a threat on their life. So, if I may ask, how could we as a country overcome all these things without an increase in spending?
ROFLMAO! Hi Mr. Kettle. I'm Ms. Pot. You're black!
If this is your "observation" then perhaps a visit to the optometrist is in order?
HHC: I can't make this stuff up. UnKerrying believable.
I am truly sorry you and 25 other people feel that way. Rest assured that, based what I have been reading here over the past year and a half, the "Bushbot" term is non gender-specific. That is the way I use it and that is the way I will continue to use it when the occasion warrants.
The level of venom I have seen by some on this thread dictates that I continue to use the term to characterize unthinking, noncritical supporters of the President.
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.