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 ...
A brilliant piece and sadly accurate; it will go nowhere.
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.
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....
I'm not sure about you...but my taxes went down due to the Bush tax cut.
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.
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
Won't stay there after $200B for NO and another $200B for Galviston/Houston.
I guess because he's the responsible adult?
Except that GW isn't cutting spending on foreign aid...
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.
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!
"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.
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
Bridge to Nowhere: Is that a SUNY Stony Brook reference?
Do you max out credit cards because the stuff you buy with them are "free"?
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.
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.