GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[ovrtaxt]

Growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia.

House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.

[cricket]

Personally think, unless they have another Republican they think can run and win; then they ought to shut up.

[BigSkyFreeper]

But then, you don't want to hear the truth.

Try me, but I can guarantee you that I've heard it all.

[WOSG]

Good thing you're not GW!

That attitude will get you a Democrat Congressional majority pronto!!

If our Republican leaders lose touch with what the people want, they will lose elections. Glad to hear they let Rove have it.

[FreeReign]

BTW, the only real increase in Bush's discretionary budget in 2003 relative to GDP was Bush's Homeland Defense expenditures.

Also false on its face. Homeland Security accounts for 1.3% of total outlays as of the most recently proposed budget. That is a doubling of outlays versus the same items in the 2001 budget (Clinton's last). Total non-military discretionary spending amounts to 19.4%+ versus 17.2% of federal outlays in 2001. That means that Homeland Security amounts for only 0.65% out of a total 2.2% increase in the proportion of non-military non-discretionary spending, which means that non-Homeland Security items account for the remaining 1.55%. Stated differently, Homeland Security accounts for Homeland Security accounts for less than one-third of the 20.8% Bush expansion of non-military real discretionary spending.

According to the OMB, discretionary, non-DOD, non homeland defense type spending for FY2002(actual) was 351 billion, for FY2003(enacted) it was 367 billion and for 2004(estimated) it is 374 billion.

If you do the math you will find that the increase from 2002(actual) to 2003(enacted) is 4.5%, and the increase from 2003 enacted to 2004 estimated is 0.2%.

That would be an increase of 4.7% over the two years which is less than the increase in GDP.

You are wrong, your Cato chart is misleading and here is the link to the OMB data -- data that is not filtered through CATO in a misleading manner; Link

The only real increase in Bush's discretionary budget in 2003 relative to GDP was Bush's Homeland Defense expenditures.

[FreeReign]

Moreover, none of that was at Reagan's sole discretion since every spending bill passed and signed during his term had to be introduced by a Democratic House.

The president at his own discretion submits the budget to the House through the OMB. The president at his own discretion signs the budget after congress sign it.

The Congress can't rewrite what is submitted. The congress can refuse to sign the appropriations.

Reagan submitted and signed those federal budget

[hchutch]

Well, wait a minute... if I'm one of those centrist party-over-principel types, then why did I back North, Schundler, and Bill Simon (who also got some donations from me)?

Could it possibly be that I'm a conservative Republican who does not like backstabbers of either the moderate/RINO persuasion OR the "principled conservative" persuasion?

[BigSkyFreeper]

It's not Rove's fault Congress passed all those "nightmarish" bills we see FReepers tearing Bush apart over. I've yet to see a single President veto something he proposed.

[af_vet_rr]

This is what has led to other parties emerging and replacing sitting parties in the past.

We are about due for major party shake-ups.

[FreeReign]

Why then -- despite the fact that the GOP now controls the Presidency, Senate and Congress, don't they steam "roll" over the minority Democrats??

The GOP has too many Rino's in the senate.

[F16Fighter]

"That's why I think the answer is to elect more Republicans, increase their majority ratio, so they will be able to get bill through and judges approved, without having to beg the Democrats."

Bro -- We were told if we could ONLY win the Congress AND the Senate, we'd be able generate momentum for a conservative agenda; We did it, and that wasn't enough.

We then were told winning the Presidency along with a majority in the Senate and Congress, would enable the GOP to perform miracles; THAT didn't happen.

Now you're implying the GOP needs a Senate super-majority to get things done?

No Sale -- NOT buying it...

The ONLY things the GOP "needs" is a President to use the bully-pulpit, and it's members of Congress and the Senate to apply principle and a set of balls to get things done. Enough freakin' back-room "deals." RAT boogeyman Ted Kennedy isn't going away soon.

[hchutch]

Well, what should I do - Warner deliberately stabbed Ollie North in the back! Why should I give him a pass for that?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bush already has the bully pulpit. Congress just needs a set of brass balls.

[F16Fighter]

"Well, wait a minute... if I'm one of those centrist party-over-principel types, then why did I back North, Schundler, and Bill Simon (who also got some donations from me)?"

Huh?? I never inferred you were a "centrist-type."

[AntiGuv]

The Congress can't rewrite what is submitted.

Yes, they can. In fact, they can totally ignore anything the President submits if they want.

I am not sure you and I should debate this matter any further.

[F16Fighter]

"Bush already has the bully pulpit. Congress just needs a set of brass balls."

They ALL need a "set" of balls. Top to Bottom.

They 're sitting at the top of the mountain tossing spitballs at the Dems.

[BigSkyFreeper]

"Yes, they can. In fact, they can totally ignore anything the President submits if they want."

They can, and they don't.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The only one getting spat on, is the President.

[Poohbah]

Three things "true conservatives" can do to get their way:

1. Generate lots of votes.

2. Generate lots of votes.

3. Generate lots of votes.

If you do that, the GOP will listen to you, and will move much further to the right.

If you don't, and CONTINUE to play the "my way or the highway" card, you're not going to be listened to--because politicians usually quit listening to the people who didn't vote for them.

[hchutch]

Okay, so then what am I?

[F16Fighter]

"The GOP has too many Rino's in the senate."

Yes, aka, Centrists with no agenda but to play it safe, and be an incumbent.

These "Republicans" are near useless.