Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Whatever It Takes.' Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?
Opinion Journal ^ | 9/22/05 | Peggy Noonan

Posted on 09/22/2005 1:36:50 PM PDT by Crackingham

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--"But where's the money going to come from?"--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying "Republicans don't care about black people," and "They're always tightwads with the poor."

In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--"whatever it takes"--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.

George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; earmarks; government; gummintgiveaways; otherpeoplesmoney; outofcontrolspending; pork; spending; spendingspree; stopmebeforeispend; taxandspendgopers; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

1 posted on 09/22/2005 1:36:50 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

A brilliant piece and sadly accurate; it will go nowhere.


2 posted on 09/22/2005 1:39:58 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Bush is farther to the left on spending than Bill Clinton was during his Presidency. And whoever succeeds Bush will be even farther to the left. If it's a Democrat, I'm not sure the Union will survive. We may have our own little 21st Century Boston Tea Party.


3 posted on 09/22/2005 1:41:54 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

First of all I would ask if it is important to spend the money in rebuilding the gulf coast....answer to that is YES with hands down.

Next I would ask, is all the aid to china, france, germany, russia, and the rest of the world worth it and my answer to that is NO with hands down...

So that is how I justify helping our American people BEFORE we help the ungrateful world....


4 posted on 09/22/2005 1:42:07 PM PDT by HarleyLady27 (My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I'm not sure about you...but my taxes went down due to the Bush tax cut.


5 posted on 09/22/2005 1:47:11 PM PDT by Pondman88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
First, I would like to ask that all the fiscal conservatives not get PHYSICALLY mad at me for this statement.
Please refrain from telling me that you feel you should not have to pay for anything that does not directly affect your life, you have made that perfectly clear and I believe it is a valid position and not at all the subject of this post.

I would like to make a simple observation about semantics.

The President said we will do whatever it takes to rebuild the infrastructure of New Orleans.
He did NOT say, "We will give you whatever you want."
In choosing his words the way he did, he made the Fed's spending "self-limiting" - once the infrastructure is built, the Fed's obligation ends.

I do not think he meant to imply it will be a blank check.
6 posted on 09/22/2005 1:47:39 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut

Gee, I thought the Congress was the entity that spends our money.

When Republicans control both the House and the Senate, why exactly is this spending GW's fault?

He could have vetoed the highway bill, but didn't have enough votes to support it.


7 posted on 09/22/2005 1:50:21 PM PDT by A.Hun ("I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Well that speech back in 2000 about "Compassionate Conservatism "and "On the Backs Of the Poor " told you all you needed to know about Bush's social affairs position


8 posted on 09/22/2005 1:52:36 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27
First of all I would ask if it is important to spend the money in rebuilding the gulf coast....answer to that is YES with hands down.

Yep rebilud so a CAT 4 or 5 can do it allover again

Rita turns more northward you will see a different attitude
9 posted on 09/22/2005 1:54:14 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pondman88

Won't stay there after $200B for NO and another $200B for Galviston/Houston.


10 posted on 09/22/2005 1:56:11 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
When Republicans control both the House and the Senate, why exactly is this spending GW's fault?

I guess because he's the responsible adult?

11 posted on 09/22/2005 1:57:41 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

Except that GW isn't cutting spending on foreign aid...


12 posted on 09/22/2005 1:59:19 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I agree completely... except for this:

A 'Rat next time might not be so bad from the fiscal perspective. Bush's spending is a futile attempt to prove himself to the underclass (who will never vote for him anyway). Clinton, for instance, didn't have to do that. He already knew he had them in his pocket. Instead he was forced to sign in NAFTA and welfare reform (for largely the same reasons Bush feels compelled to spend).

There's a strange irony to the whole political world.


13 posted on 09/22/2005 1:59:49 PM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham; TaxRelief; Huber

Awesome point! Spend, spend, and spend. If taxes are being cut, then the government is cutting other programs to pay for the aid to Katrina (soon Rita too) and the Iraq war right? No! Where's the conservatism in that? Whatever happened to simply protecting our borders, building a national defense, and providing truly free enterprise? Bush has tried to appear as a compassionate conservative on so many situations, but his hopeless attempts have molded into what seems to be inexpedient liberalism. I witnessed the night when McCain stood up in the Senate and went off on the highway bill's unacceptable pork. You could just see Murkowski, acting as presiding officer, squirming in her seat while piercing McCain with a gaze of disdain and greed, and Stevens, boasting in his chair as the Pro Tempore, exuding a slight smirk and chuckle as he hears McCain cite that most of the pork is going directly to his state. The pork is superfluous and must be stopped somehow!


14 posted on 09/22/2005 2:00:29 PM PDT by TexCon ("Strike while the iron is hot, and make it hotter by striking"-Oliver Cromwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

"why exactly is this spending GW's fault?"

You're right. It isn't all his fault. Congress is more than half the blame. Still, since they're pubs and therefore ostensibly conservative, that doesn't really make me feel any better.

Also, W has yet to unsheath his veto pen. Not once.


15 posted on 09/22/2005 2:02:36 PM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.

Peggy's once sharp analytic abilities are certainly slipping. There is nothing arguably shrewd about destroying any credibility, you ever had. Those of us, who in our times--mine many years back--fought the Leftist Collegiate establishments, with success, can well attest what use the Leftist Collegiate establishments are going to make of Mr. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism," over the next generation. It will be an Albatross around the necks of the Campus Conservatives.

No, it is not shrewd politics. Nor, of course, as Peggy recognizes, is it shrewd sociology, economics or anything else. The Republicans in Congress who understand these things, and care about the future of the Party, had better find ways to distance themselves from these policies--and yesterday is not a whit too soon.

William Flax

16 posted on 09/22/2005 2:09:23 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Bridge to Nowhere: Is that a SUNY Stony Brook reference?


17 posted on 09/22/2005 2:11:23 PM PDT by Buck W. (Yesterday's Intelligentsia are today's Irrelevantsia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Federal Assistance
In the event of a Presidential declared disaster, the Federal Emergency Management
... Seventy five percent of the costs are funded by Federal Emergency ...

By law the government is responsible for 75% of the cost of any federal declared disaster so I really don't see how this can be blamed on Bush.
18 posted on 09/22/2005 2:18:31 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pondman88
I'm not sure about you...but my taxes went down due to the Bush tax cut.

Do you max out credit cards because the stuff you buy with them are "free"?

19 posted on 09/22/2005 2:31:46 PM PDT by Texas Federalist ("There is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget." Tom DeLay - R? Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
When Republicans control both the House and the Senate, why exactly is this spending GW's fault?

When he hasen't vetoed a bill in 5 years, this argument doesn't fly. Also, he doesn't even talk about cutting spending. A president uses the bully pulpit to set the agenda for his party. This Congress is just following its leader who is marching us down the road of European Socialism.

20 posted on 09/22/2005 2:35:52 PM PDT by Texas Federalist ("There is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget." Tom DeLay - R? Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson