There has been no vast expansion of the government under George Bush.
Posted on 03/08/2006 7:08:13 AM PST by beeler
If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.
"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."
Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?
Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."
It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."
Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."
True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.
Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He was the most conservative person that could possibly be elected. If a candidate is unelectable, it is just farting in the wind.
By the way, Harriet Meirs never even got a hearing. You have no idea whether she would have made a decent justice or not.
Hahaha. Oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh harder. Bwahahaha!
Lets see...considering Bush is pro life, has reigned in the EPA, improved the military, nominated conservative judges in nearly every instance to the Appeals and Supreme court, taken a stance against late term abortions and stem cell research....the list goes on and on.
Maybe not conservative enough for you, but far more conservative than many in the US. If he isn't conservative enough for you...vote Democrat next time.
They will show you what true liberals can do to this nation.
There has been no vast expansion of the government under George Bush.
I assume you can read. That's why I sent you the link.
See post 82.
As much as I love Ronald Reagan, he gave an amnesty to illegals, and ran the highest deficits in the history of this nation. He also ran against Jimmy Carter, the worst President of all time, at a time when interest rates were over 10% and unemployment heading to double digits.
If you applied the same standards to Reagan that you did to Bush....
In 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, total spending was 21.4 percent. It was 18.5 percent when he left in 2001. Under the Bush presidency it has risen to 20.1 percent. "Programmatic spending," i.e. entitlements, went from 11.2 percent to 10.9 percent under 'Toon, and has risen to 11.8 percent since. Discretionary spending went from 8.2 percent to 6.5 percent from 1993-2001, and has risen to 7.9 percent since. (One percentage point of that latter is defense.)
But of course Pres. Bush has governed with a GOP House during his entire time, and a GOP Senate for much of it. So we could reasonably expect that spending not rise, but (defense aside) actually fall as a percentage of the economy. Instead we got the prescription-drug entitlement, which (like all such entitlements) will prove to be far more expensive than first forecast and which many GOP Reps., to their credit, opposed. I don't really want government to return to its normal level when the GOP is in charge, I want it to shrink. That it has not is probably a function of what the public wants, but this shatters the notion that the GOP is any sort of revolutionary party on spending.
On spending Pres. Bush has made mistakes. I think he now realizes that, but a lot of the damage is done.
As I said -- a drunken-sailor binge, with spending up from $1863.2 billion (2001) to $2472.2 billion (2005).
There's one massive, undeniable, glaring difference. Republicans own congress. The best position for conservatives in the history of the country has been squandered. This opportunity will not present itself again thanks to our inept leader.
>
I like nothing at all about the Democratic party; but, I know that the only way to clear the crap out of the GOP is to allow the Democrats to come in and clean house.
>
There is no evidence that providing Democrats with the power of incumbency is a path towards improvement. There is also no evidence that a comment like this would differ at all in its goal from that of Democrat activists.
FR must embrace the concept of defeating Democrats, unconditionally. Any other approach advances the cause of the left. Period and full stop.
A better question is why should anyone from the administration go? They have much better things to do.
Oh good heavens. That's like saying the only way to clear the crap out of Cuba was for Castro to come in and clean house.
Look at percentage of GDP...that is the only meaningful way to compare. Also, look at the amount increase for military as opposed to discretional spending.
Discretional spending has stayed in the 3 to 3.5 percent range.
Entitlements can't be touched by GWB..
Using gross dollar amounts is a common dodge, as is lumping everything together.
These d*cks in our Congress couldn't pull a wet string out of a cat's a$$. That is not GWB's fault.
The evidence is that gridlock works very well.
There's socially conservative, fiscally conservative, etc. There's no one description of 'conservative minded' no matter how much you may close your eyes and wish it to be so.
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.