Posted on 09/06/2002 9:14:53 AM PDT by john bell hood
Spouting patriotic rhetoric and enjoying the support of fellow Republicans, George W. Bush has masqueraded as a conservative while actually advancing a liberal agenda.
When Bill Clinton boasted that "the era of big government is over," there were probably more belly laughs than nods. After all, Clinton was widely recognized as a big-spending liberal. He was seen by many as a dangerous demagogue with an insatiable appetite for power, an appetite that might have consumed our liberties if not for public and congressional resistance.
But with the election of supposed conservative George W. Bush, the public vigilance that helped keep Bill Clinton’s lust for power in check appears to have waned. Many Republicans and conservatives — who were quick to challenge President Clinton’s every power grab — fail to recognize the hypocrisy when President George W. Bush challenges Congress, as he did with a straight face during a radio address on August 17th, to "show spending restraint" lest the president "enforce spending restraint." Promising that his administration "will spend what is truly needed, and not a dollar more," Mr. Bush zeroed in on the Senate for "ignoring fiscal discipline": "I requested $2.4 billion for public housing; the bill moving through the Senate includes $300 million more. I requested $2.2 billion for agricultural research; again, the Senate wants to spend $300 million more." But such statements beg the question: Why is George W. Bush requesting billions of dollars for unconstitutional welfare state activities in the first place? How can an allegedly "conservative" president be so free with the taxpayers’ money?
Unfortunately, although Bush enjoys the reputation of a conservative, his own record shows that he is a liberal. In fact, his liberalism may be more dangerous than that of his immediate predecessor. Bill Clinton, a lifelong Democrat with a far-left pedigree, often provoked resistance from congressional Republicans and conservatives in general. Yet Republican congressmen who refused to support Clinton’s liberal policies have willingly supported similar policies when offered by fellow Republican George W. Bush. Consequently, Bush has been more effective than his predecessor, in many ways, in advancing Clintonian liberalism.
Bush’s Bloated Budget
A month after becoming president, Mr. Bush explained in a press conference (February 22, 2001) that his budget would reduce the rate at which spending is increasing — but without cutting spending in the absolute sense. "We’re going to slow the rate of growth of the budget down," he said at the time. "It should come to [sic] 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."
Bush, in other words, didn’t promise to shrink the size of government, but merely to slow the rate of big-government expansion — to put the brakes on the car speeding towards the precipice, but not to stop it, much less change its direction. But in the end, Bush didn’t even put on the brakes, but hit the accelerator instead. In the budget he submitted in April 2001, Bush proposed spending $1,961 billion in fiscal 2002 as compared to an estimated $1,856 billion in 2001 — a 5.7 percent increase. That, of course, was before September 11th. In a midterm budget summary released in July, the Bush administration estimated fiscal 2002 spending at a whopping $2,032 billion as compared to actual fiscal 2001 spending of $1,864 — a nine percent increase. The July budget document also proposed spending $2,138 billion in fiscal 2003, a 5.2 percent increase over 2002. During the Clinton presidency, the rate of increase in the federal budget from one year to the next never exceeded 5.1 percent (1999 to 2000), and it was as low as 2.6 percent (1996 to 1997). The bottom line: Federal spending is increasing at a faster rate with George W. Bush in the White House than it did with Bill Clinton in the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Without siding one way or the other on the issue of the article, I was wondering something. Those who appear to be in support of Bush on this issue have not made a single statement to refute this article. There have been several posts filled with ad hominem and insinuation of such.
When people like the NOW gang support Clinton and even go so far as to make excuses for his sexual perversion and further more attack the victims, everyone here sees clearly that the NOW gang and their ilk do not believe what they say they do, but rather only support democrats. Yet when the same issues are raised against a republican president, the very people who would be outraged were it a democrat are supportive to the extent of being hostile to those asking questions.
Now if you want to say Bush is a good president and that he is a far better president than Clinton was or Gore would have been, I can agree wholeheartedly. I would even help to enumerate the multitude of ways. But those of you who come here and start calling names and offer no debate and stick your heads in the sand are shameless and deserve no support. Bush has not been a domestic conservative. I don't believe that Bush is a domestic conservative. If someone can show evidence that he is, please post it, but the namecalling just proves you are nothing better than the R version of the average RAT.
What war? The war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war against Iraq, the war against the liberty and freedoms of the american people.
If this president really thinks he is at war, the first thing he would do is close the borders to eliminate illegals from entering the country. The next thing he would do would be to round up all illegals and deport them. Then he would get rid of undesireable immigrants. Then he would develope a civilian defense policy. He has done none of these things. Why, you ask, because there is no war.
In my view, Bush IS the Left. By 'the Left' I mean anything that's bad for our nation, my own family and myself and is good for those who would like to turn us into a disciplined herd.
He doesn't have a choice! I look just like him.
Dangit!
;-)
Oh, please. I can sum up this kind of article as follows: Unappeasables Unappeased.
I'll admit, though, that it's a far better (if longer) read than Chuck Baldwin Is Annoyed Today.
Huh? Do you want him to invade Zimbabwe or something?
If you're talking about the ones I think you are, they're his sons.
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.