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 ...
Turn in your freeper credentials immediately! You don't belong here! ;)
I currently support President Bush at this time. I do not need to provide you or anyone else with any reason why I support him.
If you guys do not like Bush, fine. Find a candidate you like, help them run for office and convice me to vote for them.
I agree with an earlier poster, there is a lot of things going on right now, I am not disapointed that President Bush can not wave a magic wand and make everything better. I understand polictics enough that the President can not be all things to all people. But if it makes you all feel better, keep complaining.
Isn't surrounding himself with "smart people" smart?
He was much more conservative as governor of Texas. But Texas is more conservative than the country as a whole.
I think he's a realist.
Speaking of guns, guess who pushed the right to carry in Texas.
Excellent point. Why bother chasing 0.4% of the vote? Eff 'em.
Noted.
Also noted is the fact that it's pointless to try and convince you of anything, so I'm going to take the lead of an intelligent politician, and ignore you completely next election.
There. Now, that certainly improved your strategic position, didn't it?
The problem with your so-called solution of compromise is that you never quite to develop the will to actually change anything..it's all maybe and might followed by well maybe tomorrow. Clue me into what this establishes other than the status quo?
I agree that there are only 2 'realistic' political choices today and they are both bad. The GOP must either be destroyed or suffer a major defeat for some reasonable alternative to the commie-like 2 parties of today to develop. As you may remember, the GOP had to be infiltrated for decades by conservatives before they had at least some say during Reagan years. Following Reagan, the true conservatives were replaced and their role changed from that of leaders to that of supporters - something similar to the role of Blacks in today's Demo party, where their vote is expected and taken for granted, some of their rhetoric is used when convenient and nearly nothing is given to them.
Sorry people, if you are conservatives (normal people that is) you must understand that you can no longer take over the GOP. They've learned the Reagan lesson and it won't happen again. You must leave this accursed political entity and live a dignified existence as a growing 'third party'. Today's GOP is what the Whigs used to be in the mid 1800. They must go or the country will suffer.
Absolutely. But he CAN spend all people's resources making sure that 'no child is left behind', helping illegal Mexicans express their 'family values' by illegally settling in our country, giving away money to support African mass-murdering regimes, encouraging to commies of China to destroy whatever is left of our industrial capacity, etc., etc.
After all, it's only politics.
Works for me.
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.