Bush's Top Priority Items scuttled by Republican Leadership

BLUE BAY | 11-17-2004 | vannrox

[vannrox]

Bush's Top Priority Items scuttled by Republican Leadership

Bluebay Media
vannrox
11-17-2004

Bush's Top Priority Items scuttled by Republican Leadership. Less than two weeks after the decisive 2004 election, senior republican senate leaders have openly opposed key policy agenda of the Bush Administration. Questions have arisen concerning whether or not this president has a "Popular Mandidate" to implement his programs. His greatest hurtle is within his own party.

Key to the 2004 - 2008 policy programs unveiled by the President include Tax Reform, Judicial Nominations, The War on Terror, and Social Security Reform. At every step in these key policy issues lay a Republican doing his best to prevent the Presidents agenda from moving forward.

"We will continue our economic progress. We'll reform our outdated tax code. We'll strengthen Social Security for the next generation," said Bush. "We'll make public schools all they can be. And we'll uphold our deepest values of family and faith. We'll help emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Inspirational speech, but is it possible to accomplish?

Perhaps one of the most critical policy implementations of this current administration is an overhaul of the TAX CODE. Bush's top priorities are expected to be making permanent his $1.8 trillion in tax cuts for individuals and corporations and reforming the tax code.

And as Bush suggested after the election, there will be an effort to overhaul and simplify the tax code, but he has offered no specifics.

"I would foresee a major push toward tax reform," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union. Sepp said there is talk of introducing a flat tax or national consumption tax or at the minimum seeking to lower tax rates on investment and savings income. This is not a simple deletion of faulty and confusing elements in the code, but rather a wholesale and complete overview of the entire program.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Bush talked of a second term that would promote an "ownership society," a concept that could include tax-free savings accounts for medical, education and retirement needs.

Key to accomplishing this goal would be the Senate Finance Committee, currently chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley R-Iowa. (Who is expected to retain his seat at the helm of this important committee). Unfortunately, this senator has opposed eveery effort to change the tax code, and in public statements made after the election, made it clear that he would oppose the Bush plan to simplify the tax code.

He has not agreed that there is the so-called mandidate, but rather that it is necessary and critical that there be a continuation of the committee's "bipartisan tradition.".

He plans to maintain work initially presented to the committee by the President, including extend key tax breaks set to expire at the end of 2005.

In a nod to the Democrat Leadership he plans to close loopholes that allow individuals, companies, and charities to abuse the tax code.

Sen Grassley's insistance that the President plan to appoint a bipartisan advisory committee on tax reform to consider changes is highly unusual, and given the nature of the election victory, entirely unnecessary. Still unconvinced of the Presidential mandidate, this Republican Senator is taking the "wait and see" approach.

"I've said it'll take a national consensus on how to proceed on major tax reform. It might be that President Bush's re-election will produce that consensus..." stated Sen. Grassley.

His plan, in direct opposition to that of the president, includes maintaining the Status Quo, and implementating yet more new rules and regulations to the tax code. These changes would "shift the burden of taxes from the poor to the rich", provide tax breaks for the poor, and implement programs that would increase deductions for environmental concerns.

Senator Grassley is not the only republican dragging his feet on the way to changes...

Sen. Arlen Specter, a liberal republican from Pennsylvania who backs abortion rights, anti-gun measures, and affirmative action, said he has supported judicial nominees in the past who do not agree with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

His warning statement to the Conservative population that voted Bush to his second term was clear as it was frightening.

Right after Tuesday's election, Specter set off a furor among conservatives when he said anti-abortion judges were unlikely to be confirmed by the newly elected Senate.

He said Bush has had trouble getting some of his nominees confirmed because of Democratic filibusters. He added, "I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

On Sunday, Specter said he was only pointing out a political fact: Republicans alone lack the votes to quash a Democratic filibuster of a Bush nominee. He also said his support for abortion rights would not get in the way of a judge who does not back those rights. However, his strong and agressive denial of Judge Bork to the Court speaks much louder than the contemporaneous statements of Senator Specter.

It was Senator Spector that, through his actions, prevented Judge Bork from placement in the court. His reason? Conservative values, and a strong pro-life belief system.

It is no wonder why Conservatives do not want Spector to chair the Judicial committee.

With senate members like Specter and Grassley, is it any wonder if our country can reform itself back to the COnstitutional Republic that it was intended to be? Will we, and will our children, miss an opportunity of a lifetime, to have our votes mean for something and matter? Will we sit by and permit those whom wear the mantle of "Republican" to oppose real conservative principles and programs?

No. I for one will not sit by in idle futility and watch it happen. And I urge everyone to make your voice heard. Not just once. Not just by e-mail. But by letter, and phone. We can make a difference. We will make a difference. It's up to you and me. Let's Roll.

[vannrox]

Comments?

[dmartin]

Get some rope.

Until we begin to hold each of these politicians accountable to the people we will continue down the same path. Far too many of them are comfortable with their positions and the favors that those positions afford them.

[clintonh8r]

Two words of warning for recalcitrant RINO senators: "Tom Daschle."

[af_vet_rr]

Not to put President Bush down, but how many of his promises were just campaign year politics? If you go back and look at every election from 2000 on back, most candidates promised many things that in retrospect, they knew they had no chance of implementing. He can't even be faulted if he was makings promises he knew couldn't happen, because that has become an accepted part of the way campaigns are.

[bayourod]

Senators are a bunch of prima donnas who must squeeze an average of $100,000 a month in contributions from lobbyists to keep getting reelected.

They live so extravagantly like royalty that they are confident that the "mutual protection" code of politics that they all observe will not be broken by any members.

Senators despise the White House because it detracts from their absolute power.

Their worse nightmare is being "daschled". We need to let them ALL know that we want them to support our President.

[You Dirty Rats]

I don't think your criticism applies to President Bush. He campaigned in 2000 on tax cuts and education reforms, and got both through Congress despite the fact that he did not even have a plurality of the votes.

[af_vet_rr]

I don't think your criticism applies to President Bush. He campaigned in 2000 on tax cuts and education reforms, and got both through Congress despite the fact that he did not even have a plurality of the votes.

On the one hand, that's true, but on the flip side, the tax cuts weren't much, and the education reforms are a joke and many of us don't like the federal government getting involved in local issues. Those are only two issues though.

[lilylangtree]

Considering that the Republican Party has started to stab their constituency in the back by approving Specter's Chairmanship position, I don't hold out any hope for the Pubbies in '08.

[Independentamerican]

I don't know. Tax cuts were nice but not much. In the mean time state and county government strapped for cash are raising fees on everything from property tax to vehicle registration. In the state of MD an increase to register your SUV of $47. Parking in the city has doubled since last year. So yes the tax cuts look good and all but not all that helpful. Now a flat tax and social security reform would really be something to brag about.

[Independentamerican]

Whats up Grassley's butt ! Why would he not support the president.

[G.Mason]

"Comments?"

The smarmy Congress had better watch out for the presidential veto powers making some Senators and Congress critters look bad at home. ;)

At the least, even should they be able to override a veto or two, the mere fact that they will have to work hard will be it's own justice.

[Digger]

What's Up? Nothing more than this "Two-Party Cartel" owned by & run by the elite powers-to -be. The peoples interest has no meaning to them but occasionally one gets sacrificed ala Dashole. Remember we reelect a bigger % than the old Soviet regime. Any bets that after 4 yrs hardly anything will have changed?

[Dahoser]

1994 all over again.

Republicans take over both houses, most significantly the House where they hadn't been in power in some 40 years, on the crest of the Contract with America. Didn't take long for deficit blowhards like Pete Domenici to declare the Contract null and void in the Senate.

Many of those same hoseheads, who also undermined the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, the only elected US President to be impeached, are still in place.

[Tarl]

Spector has done alot of things in the past to create serious concerns about his ethics but I also know that I have come to trust GW's instincts...he doesnt make foolish choices. I think the President has either got personal assurances from Spector or assurances from people he really trusts that Spector is the one likely to forge the presidents judges through to at least a vote on the floor which is where the Senate majority can have its true effect.

Whew a long winded sentence, Rush Limbaugh has pointed out that Spector may have been "using the press" to dampen the Liberals fears and thus have some freedom to garner enough Demorat agreement to avoid having to go "nuclear" to end the fillibuster threats.

I don't know enough of Santorum, other than his strong opposition to the Scotus decision on behalf of those two caught in the act of sodomy in Texas...but I DO TRUST the Presidents discernment in who he chooses to endorse.

[hlmencken3]

I have personal connections to Sen. Grassley's office and I can assure everyone that the author mischaracterizes Sen. Grassley's attitude.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

His plan, in direct opposition to that of the president, includes maintaining the Status Quo, and implementating yet more new rules and regulations to the tax code. These changes would "shift the burden of taxes from the poor to the rich", provide tax breaks for the poor, and implement programs that would increase deductions for environmental concerns.

Is Grassley becoming a Democrat???

[reformed_democrat]

I thought Sen. Hatch was taking over the Finance Committee chair. He currently chairs Judiciary, but he's term limited by Senate and House Rules to six years, as are all Chairmen. That's why Specter is next in line to chair Judiciary.

I don't know which committee Grassley will be chairing in the 109th Congress, but I don't think it will be Finance.

[hlmencken3]

Sen. Grassley is already listed as the Senate Finance Chairman. He is expected to chair Judiciary after his term limit as Chairman of Finance is up in four years.

Sen. Grassley's credentials as a conservative cannot be challenged.

http://finance.senate.gov/

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/11/12/Politics/Iowas.Main.Street.Republican-308296.shtml

[reformed_democrat]

My mistake. I was thinking of Appropriations. Stevens will be stepping down, not Grassley.

Sen. Grassley has more seniority than Specter. I wish he could be convinced to challenge Specter for the Judiciary Chairmanship, but I understand he prefers to remain at Finance.