Posted on 11/13/2001 7:17:48 AM PST by ILoveFreedom&Liberty
The Real Bush Record
by Gary Benoit
By most accounts, George W. Bush is an arch-conservative busily dismantling the liberal, big government legacy of the Clinton-Gore years. But the record compiled by the new administration during its first six months in office shows that the media-generated conservative image is only skin deep. Close observers of presidential politics were given fair warning early on that Mr. Bush would continue the activist role of the federal government. "Government has a role, and an important one," the new president declared in his February 27th speech to a joint session of Congress. "Our new governing vision says government should be active, but limited; engaged, but not overbearing. And my budget is based on that philosophy." Predictably, then, the president’s budget proposal further expands the role of government in ways that would make the Founding Fathers cringe. The budget, though, is only one yardstick by which to measure George W. Bush’s deviation from constitutional conservatism. Here we present four broad categories by which to judge President Bush’s supposed conservatism. Review this record, then decide if the George W. Bush reality lives up to the George W. Bush myth.
| 1 |
The Bloated Budget: Many good Americans who get their news from the major media have the impression that President Bush is trying to cut back on the total cost of government following its mercurial rise under the administration of Bill Clinton. Many may even think that he is succeeding, at least to some degree. But the record shows otherwise. In a February 22nd press conference, Bush made clear that he was not trying to cut the budget in the absolute sense, but was merely after a cut in the rate of increase:
Let me remind you, and the people who are listening, that accounting in Washington is a little different than the way … the average person accounts. This is a town where if you don’t increase the budget by an expected number, it’s considered a cut.
We’re going to slow the rate of growth of the budget down. It should come to no surprise to anybody that my budget is going to say loud and clear that the rate of growth of the budget, for example, from last year, was excessive. And so we’ll be slowing the rate of growth of the budget down. That, evidently, is a cut. In my parlance, it’s not a cut — when you increase spending, it’s not a cut.
Later that month, Bush sent Congress a budget proposal entitled A Blueprint for New Beginnings, and in April he submitted his more detailed (and slightly revised) Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2002.* The latter document calls for federal outlays of $1,961 billion in 2002 as compared to $1,856 billion in 2001 — an increase of 5.7 percent. By comparison, the data in the Historical Tables released by the Bush White House shows that federal outlays increased by 3.0 percent from 1998 to 1999; by 5.0 percent from 1999 to 2000; and by an estimated 3.7 percent from 2000 to 2001. Thus, according to Bush’s own budget proposal, he is advocating an increase in the rate of spending as opposed to a decrease.
The Historical Tables also show federal outlays in terms of 1996 constant dollars. Even by this measuring stick, Bush is proposing an increase in federal outlays compared to the Clinton years ($1,730 billion in fiscal 2002, for instance, as compared to $1,678 in 2001 and $1,659 in 2000). In the past, Bush has correctly pointed out that Clinton and Gore wanted to spend far too much taxpayer money. Yet he proposes to spend even more money than was spent during the Clinton-Gore presidency.
In his February 27th address to Congress, Bush said his budget plan "is reasonable, and it is responsible." He continued: "It meets our obligations, and funds our growing needs.... We’ve increased spending for discretionary programs by a very responsible 4 percent, above the rate of inflation." Increasing spending for such programs faster than the rate of inflation is probably not what most people who voted for Bush had in mind. In terms of outlays, however, Bush’s budget proposal would actually increase "discretionary" spending by 6.6 percent from 2001 to 2002. Bush was able to use the lower 4 percent figure by basing his calculation on budget authority. (Outlays, which flow from budget authority, represent actual spending.)
Bush also called for paying down the national debt in his February 27th speech: "Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history."
Bush’s budget proposal does project a $2 trillion pay-down over 10 years — in the federal debt held by the public. The gross federal debt includes not just the debt held by the public but the debt held by government accounts. In Bush’s budget proposal, the latter category of debt increases by a greater amount than the former decreases. Specifically, his budget proposal estimates that the gross federal debt will be $7,160 billion at the end of fiscal 2011 as compared to $5,625 at the end of fiscal 2001. Yet, because of the federal government practice of borrowing money from government accounts such as the social security trust funds and then treating the IOUs as assets, Bush is able to claim huge budget surpluses even as total indebtedness goes up.
Bush did, at least, promote a fiscally conservative program by advocating and getting a tax cut. But even though this relief is welcome, it does not mean that the government’s burden on taxpayers will be reduced in the overall sense. First of all, Bush’s budget proposes annual increases in federal receipts (revenues) for every year from 2002 to 2011. Secondly, the only true way to cut the cost of government is to cut spending, since whatever cost that is not paid directly will still be paid indirectly through the bad effects of federal borrowing.
| 2 |
Education and Health: When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he proposed getting rid of the cabinet-level Department of Education, which had been established during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. That promise fell by the wayside after he was elected, but at least he did not propose a huge quantum jump in Education Department spending like that advocated by President Bush. In his budget proposal, Bush calls for a whopping 11.5 percent increase in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Education in 2002. This increase would be in addition to an estimated 35.7 percent increase in 2001. In dollars, Education Department spending would climb to $44.5 billion in 2002 as compared to $29.4 billion just two years earlier.
In his February 27th address, Bush described how some of this money would be spent:
Reading is the foundation of all learning. So during the next five years, we triple spending, adding $5 billion to help every child in America learn to read. Values are important, so we’ve tripled funding for character education to teach our children not only reading and writing, but right from wrong.
We’ve increased funding to train and recruit teachers, because we know a good education starts with a good teacher.
There is no evidence, though, that increasing federal education spending results in improvements in academic performance. Moreover, the framers of the Constitution did not foresee a role for the federal government in education. Then, too, there is the fact that along with federal funding comes federal control. In his speech, Bush was adamant that he supports "local control of schools" and that "we should not, and we will not, run public schools from Washington, D.C." In the same speech, however, he acknowledged that the federal government is not going to spend more money on education without expecting something in return. "When it comes to our schools, dollars alone do not always make the difference," he noted. "Funding is important, and so is reform. So we must tie funding to higher standards and accountability for results." Moreover, "when the federal government spends tax dollars, we must insist on results." That insistence on results includes Bush’s proposal for national testing — a significant, transparent step in the direction of a national education system.
The Education Department is the biggest winner in the Bush budget, but it is not the only one. In his February 27th speech, Bush pointed to another winner — health care:
To meet the health care needs of all America’s seniors, we double the Medicare budget over the next 10 years. My budget dedicates $238 billion to Medicare next year alone, enough to fund all current programs and to begin a new prescription drug benefit for low-income seniors....
Many working Americans do not have health care coverage, so we will help them buy their own insurance with refundable tax credits. And to provide quality care in low-income neighborhoods, over the next five years we will double the number of people served at community health care centers.
And we will address the concerns of those who have health coverage, yet worry their insurance company doesn’t care and won’t pay. Together this Congress and this President will find common ground to make sure doctors make medical decisions, and patients get the health care they deserve with a patients’ bill of rights.
The U.S. already has a Bill of Rights. It is enshrined in our Constitution and it protects basic rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, the press, religion, etc. A "patients’ bill of rights," regardless of how innocuous it might be in its initial form, is an obvious stepping stone toward viewing health care as an entitlement that must be protected and (eventually) provided by the federal government.
When Hillary Clinton proposed her national health care system during the early days of the Clinton presidency, the American people protested to such an extent that the proposal was scuttled. But on January 29th, Bush was able to unveil a plan to spend $48 billion over four years to help low-income seniors buy prescription drugs without kicking up hardly any controversy. Ditto for his July 12th call for expanding Medicare’s coverage. On the latter occasion, he stated: "all seniors today and tomorrow will be offered a range of new Medicare plans, including an improved and updated government plan, as well as others offered by non-government insurance plans. All the Medicare plans must offer benefits at least as comprehensive as the government plan. All will be regulated by the federal government, and all of them must offer prescription drug coverage." Hillarycare by the installment plan is now moving forward — and Bush is helping it along.
| 3 |
Environment: Media organs have depicted George W. Bush as anti-environment and Bill Clinton as pro-environment. Yet, in making public his support of a major initiative supported by the environmental lobby, Bush boasted: "And now, a Republican administration will continue and complete the work of a Democratic administration. This is the way environmental policy should work."
Bush made this attention-grabbing statement on April 19th, when he announced his support of the United Nations’ Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) treaty. "This international agreement would restrict the use of 12 dangerous chemicals — POPs, as they are known, or the Dirty Dozen," Bush said on that occasion. "I’m pleased to announce my support for the treaty and the intention of our government to sign and submit it for approval by the United States Senate." According to Bush, "this agreement addresses a global environmental problem. These chemicals respect no boundaries and can harm Americans even when released abroad."
One of these so-called "Dirty Dozen" chemicals is DDT, which was responsible for virtually eliminating malaria. The worldwide reduction in the use of DDT in recent decades has already resulted in a resurgence of malaria cases in recent years, and a further reduction under the POP treaty would only make matters worse — resulting in literally millions of agonizing and unnecessary deaths. But this unfolding human tragedy did not prevent Bush from claiming that "the risks" of using DDT and the other "Dirty Dozen" chemicals "are great, and the need for action is clear. We must work to eliminate, or at least to severely restrict the release of these toxins without delay."
The POP treaty’s "Dirty Dozen" chemicals do not include CO2 — but one might assume otherwise considering how this substance essential for the existence of life has been demonized. CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases are the subject of another UN treaty — the Kyoto Protocol. That accord requires the industrialized nations to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions, ostensibly to combat a theoretical global warming threat. Because of the industrialized nations’ dependence on carbon-based fossil fuels, implementation of Kyoto would severely restrict energy production.
Bush, media organs make clear, is opposed to the Kyoto accord. But what the media largely ignores is the basis for that opposition. It is not because he opposes the underlying assumptions behind Kyoto. In fact, he supports the underlying assumptions.
"The issue of climate change respects no border," Bush warned on June 11th, sounding much like he did in April when he lamented that the "Dirty Dozen" chemicals "respect no boundaries." The POP treaty, he said in April, "addresses a global environmental problem." In his June 11th remarks, he stated that "climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world." He even stated that "I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming."
Although Bush called the Kyoto treaty "fatally flawed" in his June 11th remarks on climate change, thereby providing the pro-Kyoto major media with a good sound-bite, he also cautioned that "America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change." That leadership role is based on the assumption that CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases are causing a global warming problem, the key assumption behind Kyoto. "Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere," Bush said.
The Kyoto treaty is "fatally flawed," in Bush’s view, not because the underlying assumptions are wrong, but because (to cite one example) it does not apply to developing nations whose "greenhouse" gas emissions are expected to increase. "This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol," Bush said.
Bush’s anti-Kyoto reputation will make it easier for him to "continue and complete the work of a Democratic administration." The Clinton administration endorsed Kyoto, but did not submit it to the Senate where it would have faced certain defeat. Bush’s reputation as a Kyoto opponent may enable him to accomplish more work on the treaty’s underlying assumptions than Clinton ever could.
President Bush is also continuing the work of his Democratic predecessor by failing to reverse Clinton’s landgrabs via executive order. Clinton had used — or, more accurately, abused — his executive authority to create or expand national monuments further limiting the use of millions of acres of public lands. Many of these unilateral actions were initiatives during the final months of Clinton’s presidency, making embarrassingly transparent his intent not only to circumvent Congress but to escape political repercussions.
Many of Bush’s supporters expected Bush to issue his own executive orders nullifying the Clinton-era landgrabs, but this turned out not to be the case. Instead, on May 4th, Bush’s new secretary of agriculture, Ann Veneman, announced the Bush administration’s decision to uphold the Clinton administration’s roadless-area rule. "Providing roadless protection for our national forests is the right thing to do," Veneman stated.
The Bush administration does at least break with the Clinton-era land lock-up policies by supporting oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That recommendation is made in the administration’s National Energy Policy, released in May by the National Energy Policy Development Group led by Vice President Dick Cheney. Nevertheless, those who view the report as a clarion call for unleashing free-market energy development are wrong for the simple reason that its mixed bag of proposals is placed within the context of a national energy policy — just as the name of the report suggests.
In his May 17th speech on energy in St. Paul, Minnesota, Bush provided a graphic example of what his vision of a national energy policy entails by calling for a national power grid: "Today, our electrical system is almost as bumpy as our highways were 80 years ago. We have chopped our country into dozens of local electricity markets, which are haphazardly connected to one another.... Highways connect Maine with Seattle; phone lines link Los Angeles and New York. It is time to match your interstate highway and phone systems with an interstate electrical grid." The administration’s National Energy Policy "envisions a comprehensive long-term strategy that uses leading edge technology to produce an integrated energy, environmental and economic policy," Cheney explained in a letter accompanying the report. What Cheney did not say, of course, is that a national energy policy is as wrong-headed as a national health care policy or a national education policy.
| 4 |
Foreign Policy: Since at least World War II, both Republican and Democratic administrations have rejected the traditional foreign policy of keeping the U.S. out of foreign entanglements and of confining the role of our military to defending America and its citizens. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is perpetuating this pattern. For instance, the first military assault authorized by Bush as commander in chief — the February 16th airstrike against Iraq — was intended, not to protect the United States from attack, but to enforce a United Nations-designated no-fly zone. "A routine mission was conducted to enforce the no-fly zone," Bush said later that day. "And it is a mission about which I was informed and I authorized. But, I repeat, it is a routine mission, and we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise."
This "routine mission" was undertaken even though, as Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged in Cairo on February 24th, "[Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] threatens not the United States. He threatens this region. He threatens Arab people." Yet, according to Powell, "The United Nations has an obligation and, as part of the United Nations, the United States has an obligation to do everything we can to cause [Saddam] to come into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War." When he met with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at UN headquarters two days prior to the airstrike, Powell claimed: "With respect to US policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we obviously are bound by UN resolutions."
The Bush administration is a strong supporter of the United Nations. During his January 17th confirmation hearing, Powell stated: "I have seen what the UN can do over the years. It is a great organization. It is deserving of our support. It has represented our interests and the interests of freedom-loving people around the world." On that same occasion, he also expressed the Bush team’s support for NATO: "we believe strongly in NATO, that great alliance across the Atlantic Ocean. It is the bedrock of our relationship with Europe. It is sacrosanct." How sacrosanct? In a February 4th interview on ABC’s This Week, Powell explained that "there is no exit date for the whole force, either in Bosnia and Kosovo. Those will be long-term commitments" of NATO.
NATO is a regional arrangement under the UN. U.S. military forces in Europe are conducting UN/NATO operations, just as U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf are conducting UN operations. In both cases our military personnel are being used to carry out UN programs and objectives.
The Bush administration, though, is not just interested in maintaining the status quo but in expanding and strengthening international entanglements. For example, the administration supports the expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). "We know from NAFTA that open trade works," Bush said on April 21st at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec. "The time has come to extend the benefits of free trade to all our peoples and to achieve a free trade agreement for the entire hemisphere."
This support for NAFTA/FTAA is very ominous indeed when it is understood that such regional arrangements are intended as stepping stones to regional regulation of trade and (eventually) regional governance. The model for NAFTA/FTAA is the European Union (EU), which is widely recognized by friend and foe alike as a developing European government that is sapping the sovereignty of the member nations. The EU, recall, was once known as the "Common Market," during which time it was presented to unsuspecting Europeans as a "free trade" arrangement for facilitating the free flow of goods. Those who think that Bush does not envision a similar trajectory for NAFTA/FTAA should ask themselves why Bush praised the EU and called for its expansion at the E.U.-U.S. summit in Göteborg, Sweden, on June 14th.
Another indicator of the Bush administration’s globalist impulses is its support of UN Secretary-General Annan, in spite of Annan’s repeated calls for global governance. When Bush welcomed Annan to the Oval Office on March 23rd, he said: "My administration thinks he is doing an excellent job as the Secretary General of the United Nations, and therefore, we heartily endorse his second term as the Secretary General." This is the same secretary-general who, in a December 14, 1999 press conference, stated: "Every community needs rules. The international community needs them as much as a local community or a district. I think the challenge on the global level — what I will call global governance — is something that is going to confront us very, very starkly." And this is the same secretary-general who, in 'We the Peoples': The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, said: "if we are to capture the promises of globalization while managing its adverse effects, we must learn to govern better, and we must learn how better to govern together." Secretary-General Kofi Annan got his second term, and is therefore well positioned to pursue global governance.
On February 16th, Bush described his foreign policy thusly: "We’ll have a foreign policy as one that engages the world. I’ve rejected isolationism, as you know, and protectionism. Ours is going to be an active foreign policy." He made those remarks in Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox at his side, during his first visit to a foreign country as president. Earlier in the day, the U.S. military had implemented the first military assault he had authorized as commander-in-chief. President Bush has indeed undertaken an "active foreign policy," by which he obviously meant an internationalist foreign policy.
In Summation
Though George W. Bush has only been president for about six months, there are many other examples that could be cited to confirm the Bush administration’s betrayal of conservative or constitutional principles. For example:
• On February 1st, Bush proposed a "New Freedom Initiative" that would expand the scope of the regulatory Americans With Disabilities Act.
• On May 14th, Bush announced his "Project Safe Neighborhoods" initiative, which, he said, "will establish a network of law enforcement and community initiatives targeted at gun violence." To implement the Project, he proposed spending $550 million over two years, including funding for new federal and state prosecutors. "This nation must enforce the gun laws which already exist on the books," he said. How gun legislation that "conservatives" oppose prior to enactment can somehow reduce crime after enactment, Bush did not say. (A White House fact sheet elaborated that the president also "supports expanding instant background checks to close the gun show loophole and banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips.")
• On June 1st, Bush informed Congress of his decision to extend "Normal Trade Relations" (formerly "Most Favored Nations" trade status) for China for another year. This decision was made in spite of China’s continued violation of basic individual rights, and in spite of the surveillance plane episode.
And on and on it goes. Many well-intentioned conservatives who supported Bush during the campaign have been disappointed by his record to date; others have not even opened their eyes. Yet, Bush’s advancement of socialist-internationalist policies under a false flag of "conservatism" is not surprising to those who understood from the beginning that Bush is beholden to the same clique of Establishment Insiders who have effectively controlled the White House for decades regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat is president (see the next article).
Our country can be rescued from the clutches of the new world order Insiders, of course. But it will only happen if enough Americans recognize that those Insiders cannot influence 435 congressional races every two years to the same extent that they can influence one presidential race every four years. A growing number of newly informed and activated Americans, working in their own congressional districts, can restore good government. Unfortunately, the false hope offered by George Bush and other "conservative" pied pipers past and present has distracted many concerned Americans from that necessary goal.
* Fiscal year 2002 begins on October 1, 2001 and ends on September 30, 2002. The years referenced with regard to spending are fiscal years.
As this article articulates quit well George Bush Is no CONSERVATIVE he is a anit-consitutionalist who is a wolf in sheep clothing. He is dressed up in this drab so that the conservatives will follow him blindly, and that is what most of you are doing.
Georgie baby signed the Patriot act into law basically elminating several admendments to the Bill of Rights and not much intellectual discussion from FreeRepublic, what is going on here????
Georgie was put in office by the Establishment to finish what Clinton was unable to finish due to the Conservative watchful Eye. That Eye is now covered with blind allegience to Georgie as he turns our once great Republic into a dictatorship with him in charge and the people at FreeRepublic Cheering him on!!!
G-D Bless, America
The fact that you are allowed to post this contradicts your claim. Besides, if you are not aware that there a large number of anti-Bush libertarians, as well as anti-Bush Buchanan Brigadiers then you are either not as active on FR as you claim, or you have a unique Freeping style that results in your missing the vast majority of discussions about Bush.
This country is in a war, and I am supporting the President. Thank you for your post. Good day.
That's funny. I thought they dedicated their lives to fighting the Masons and Shriners.
Really? Then why is this your one and only post this year? Hands burned? Can't type?
You Patsies are the biggest losers on the face of the earth. NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU OR PAT THINK.
Slowing the rate of growth is a start. The author ignores the fact that no man elected president could suddenly shrink the size of the federal government, as congress watches their power wash away without objection. Like Harry Browne would have marched right up to congress and rammed a 90% reduction in the size of government down their throats. Oh and the American people were supposed to cheer it when he did it. That’s friggin’ LaLa land thinking. I sincerely hope Bush makes a much stronger effort to reduce the real size of the government in the future. It’s going to take a major education campaign to convince the American people why that’s a good thing though, and it could not be accomplished the first year out of the box. The president simply can’t do something that 90% of the American people (and 99% of congress) would object to. It’s not possible.
His education plan sucks top to bottom, basically because it’s Ted Kennedy’s plan.
He’s done a solid job on the environment, flatly rejecting Kyoto. Despite the fact that he didn’t phrase it the way the writer of this piece wanted him too is irrelevant. The treaty is dead, I don’t care what killed it. He's had successes beating back the enviros in other areas as well. He could do more, but it's still very early in his term.
He has not reversed the Clinton landgrabs, but he’s been in office 8 months, and is currently a bit preoccuppied. I don’t know if he plans to reverse the land grabs, but if he does, it is going to take a huge PR campaign or he can kiss a second term goodbye. Personally, considering the effort he would have to extend to get it done, I’d rather he just wait till his second term and concentrate on more important issues. The ability of the Dems (with a 100% complicit media) to demonize that move is monumental. They’ll be trotting out owls and children and dolphins and moose and friggin’ koalas and telling the dopey American people that Bush will murder them all. And the dopes will buy it.
He is actively trying to open up the Artic to oil exploration. Half the people on that list of candidates would never try to do such a thing, the other half would not have the finesse to get it done if they wanted to. We’ll see if the Bush team does. I think they do.
I’m glad he blows up Iraq. I want him to blow up more of Iraq, and I believe he will after Afghanistan is straightened out. And none of his opponents in 2000, from the left or the right, are more likely to blow up Iraq.
And I stand with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher - I love NAFTA. The fact that Bush does too is a positive, not a negative, in my book. Free Trade is the traditional "conservative" position, despite what populist Pat tells you. You can argue about the particulars of NAFTA, but the overall plan of freer trade in our hemisphere and elsewhere is a noble goal.
I don’t like Annan, but it doesn’t really matter which third world idiot is in charge. Bush has paid lip service to the UN, while basically ignoring their policies and pronouncements.
"We'll have a foreign policy as one that engages the world. I've rejected isolationism, as you know, and protectionism.”
Good for Bush. That’s one of the reasons I voted for him. Overall, taking into consideration the inarguable political realities which would constrain any president with conservative ideas, I'd give Bush a B so far.
Principles? BAH.
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.