Bush Prescription Drug Program Biggest Social Spending Plan In 40 Years (RUSH LIMBAUGH)

Rush Limbaugh ^ | June 16, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

Bush Prescription Drug Program Biggest

Social Spending Plan In 40 Years

June 16, 2003

The proposal to add a prescription drug Medicare benefit keeps growing. This leads me to an Associated Press story by Tom Raum, who writes that President Bush has a tradition going back to his days as Texas governor of taking a firm stand, holding fast - but eventually making crucial concessions to opponents and then claiming victory. This goes back to "The BIG Theory" I exposed in recent weeks, about Bush taking Democrat issues away from them by passing 20%, 30% or 40% of what they want and then claiming credit for it.

This is a Karl Rove stategery aimed at expanding the Republican base to include people who want big government. That's why there's no talk of limited government, much less reducing government, anymore. It's an effort to realign the parties. "If we could get 10% of the African-American vote with this," the thinking is, "we'd destroy the Democratic Party." But where doss this lead? Is there a point where you say, "Okay, now we are veto-proof and filibuster-proof, so we can do what we really think is right?"

Note that the president's original prescription drug proposal would have encouraged elderly people to join HMOs and other private care plans to get the full benefit. No more. Now it's going to be the single biggest increase in social spending in 40 years! It's so huge, Ted Kennedy called off the attack dogs because he realized the Bush plan is basically his own. (See: Theory - Don't Sweat the "Small" Stuff) This is why so many of us reacted negatively to the term "compassionate conservative." Conservatism doesn't need a modifier - and it certainly doesn't need to act like liberalism-lite. There's no way forcing young people to pay for the drugs of people who've done nothing more than live to 65, even if they're millionaires like Bill Gates, makes it "compassionate."

We all know that the Medicare bureaucracy isn't "compassionate," so why sell these people out to it? Why add to the already staggering size of government, especially if you're a Republican president! I'm getting e-mails on both sides of this. One e-mailer called me a "Judas" for criticizing Bush and wraps up with "screw you." Another writes that I’m not critical enough: "Exactly what will Bush and the Republican Party have to do for you to slam their socialist policies?" Do you see how fragile this is, my friends? We will plug on and persevere, because this stuff is huge - especially when you get the Baby Boomers retiring. Someone has to pay for all of this. It's not "free."

On EIB Tomorrow...

"How Kennedy can come back and shaft Bush on this Medicare drug benefit."

[dark_lord]

This goes back to "The BIG Theory" I exposed in recent weeks, about Bush taking Democrat issues away from them by passing 20%, 30% or 40% of what they want and then claiming credit for it.

That was Clinton's strategy. He called it "triangulation". It works (pandering to the mob always works).

[willowpar]

I don't think the printing presses at the Federal Reserve can be cranked up fast enough to keep up with Bush's spending. I didn't think it was possible, but he's starting to make Clinton look like a fiscal conservative.

[TLBSHOW]

ping

[kesg]

He's absolutely right, but the real question is why there is so much political support for such a program in the first place.

[AAABEST]

LOL!!

/me thinks that this is a dig at Danebot™

Funny.

[.38sw]

We need this - for the children.

Oh, wait. It's not for the children. The AARP has a much larger voting block than the children do.

[AAABEST]

but he's starting to make Clinton look like a fiscal conservative.

Starting? He's been on a giddy spending spree for years now. He's literally spent thousands of dollars of my family's money on his quest to look "compassionate" and keep himself (and stink-boy Rove) employed.

We'll be paying dearly for years to come for letting this guy out of the primaries.

[TLBSHOW]

"Exactly what will Bush and the Republican Party have to do for you to slam their socialist policies?"

Rush Limbaugh 6-16-2003

I think he is talking to FR in general from the looks of it.

[buffyt]

The Republicans and the Democrats are both heading the US toward Socialism. The Democrats just want to get us there a little faster. But both parties are headed toward the same train wreck.

[AAABEST]

It's a train wreck from hell, and painful (not to mention expensive) to watch. Illogical, immoral, unscientific and harmful as well.

[Protagoras]

You might get kicked off this forum for telling the truth about the liberal Republican party. Just a few days ago they were thinking about admitting the truth about themselves and changing the name of the site to FreeRepublican.com.

(which is what many of us have been calling it for quite some time)

[Mike4Freedom]

So now you are all seeing what the Libertarians have been saying for years. There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. They will both lead us into perdition, it is just that it will go a little slower with the Republicans.

If you don't want it to happen, you had best start looking at the Libertarians and forget that "lesser of two evils" nonsense.

[TLBSHOW]

Since

FreeRepublic.com is a Conservative News Forum

and Rush is the number 1 voice for conservatives I am sure he is welcome to bring the truth to FR.

[RealEstateEntrepreneur]

I hope this is not Bush's domestic legacy.

However, please keep this in perspective. Once Bush is able to get a portion of social security privatized, the performance of those accounts will inexorably kill social security. He'll also get his Lifetime Savings Account idea implemented.

I really think (hope) the long-term Bush domestic strategy is to take us substantially toward limited government by the end of 8 years. They're buying re-election by addressing the drugs-for-seniors problem, which is a potential killer in 2004.

I hope. And the reason I hope, is that the Bush Admin has done more than pay lip service to limited gov't; they have seriously cozied up to limited gov't "radicals" (Norquist, Club for Growth, etc), and those radicals seem to really think the Admin has a good long-term plan. Otherwise they'd be screaming.

[AAABEST]

If you don't want it to happen, you had best start looking at the Libertarians and forget that "lesser of two evils" nonsense.

No thanks.

As much as I cant stand the GOP anymore, I could never adopt the Libertarian Party with that poopy pro-death, open border platform (among other horrid policies) of theirs.

[supercat]

What's ironic is that all the U.S. government would have to do to bring domestic drug prices under control would be to legalize importation of pharmaceuticals from other countries, including those originally manufactured here.

[billbears]

"Exactly what will Bush and the Republican Party have to do for you to slam their socialist policies?"

Put a D beside their name and it would be okay to actually question the actions. As it is, we're supposed to continue supporting an administration spending money that makes Clinton look tame. Remember when Republicans actually stood against nationalized healthcare instead of rallying for it? Ahh, but just because I voted for Bush apparently doesn't give me the right to actually question the Republicans actions does it?

[jagrmeister]

The numbers don't support the accusation. Clinton raised spending roughly 8% a year. Bush is at roughly 4% on average.

[Uncle Bill]

"Now it's going to be the single biggest increase in social spending in 40 years! It's so huge, Ted Kennedy called off the attack dogs because he realized the Bush plan is basically his own.

..."Exactly what will Bush and the Republican Party have to do for you to slam their socialist policies?""

---

Vote Bush, vote socialism. Why, he even thinks Ted Kennedy is a great Senator