Posted on 06/17/2003 5:07:22 AM PDT by SUSSA
Democrats may be worried that George Bush is unbeatable in 2004, but President Bush’s strength is good news for progressives. No president since LBJ has been as successful in expanding government and increasing the size and scope of social programs as this president. Presidents Carter and Clinton didn’t even come close to matching President Bush’s accomplishments in expanding government social programs. George Bush increased government size and spending more in his first two years than Bill Clinton did in his first six years. By the end of this year, he will have expanded government more than Bill Clinton did in his entire eight-year administration.
To be fair, Bill Clinton had to fight the conservatives in Congress who threw up every roadblock they could muster to thwart his progressive agenda. George Bush has not only silenced the conservative wing of the Republican Party, he has ground them into pulp and made them toothless tigers.
There is no longer any serious talk about making government smaller or eliminating government departments or programs. Smaller government used to be the bedrock principal of the Republican Party. President Bush changed that and is pushing Republicans in Congress not just to accept bigger government, but to embrace it.
Instead of eliminating the Education Department, George Bush almost doubled its size and pushed through the largest increase in funding the department ever enjoyed. He and Ted Kennedy worked closely together to make sure that the federal government also has more power over local schools than ever before.
The testing mandated by the education bill, and the mandate that schools meet minimum standards is a brilliant maneuver that will demand the standards and the tests be controlled centrally from Washington. No one will be able to oppose national standards and a national testing system. Without national standards, testing is subjective and worthless. National standards and a standardized national test will require local schools teach to the test. That means Washington will be dictating the curriculum in every school in America. Bill Clinton and Al Gore couldn’t even dream of accomplishing this much progress.
In other areas President Bush also out performed President Clinton. He expanded other programs the Contract With America targeted for elimination. He expanded Americorps, the Peace Corps, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Head Start.
Working closely with progressive Republicans and Democrats, George Bush passed the farm bill that dismantled the Freedom to Farm Act that conservative Republicans pushed through Congress, and President Clinton signed, in 1996. This new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. President Bush’s farm bill not only increased old subsidies, it created new subsidies our farmers never had before. No Democrat president could have pushed this legislation through a Republican controlled Congress. The conservative wing of the party still holds some powerful positions in Congress, especially in the House. They were proud of the Freedom to Farm Act and would have fought tooth and nail with a Democrat president to keep it in place. They caved in to President Bush without even a hint of a fight. President Bush effectively cut the conservatives in Congress off at the knees on this legislation and on most of their domestic agenda. He rules the Republican Party with an iron fist and conservatives are unable to out maneuver him.
President Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law. Conservative Republicans in Congress are still quietly seething about how he steamrollered them on this. President Bush is also leading the fight to expand Medicare, add prescription drug coverage and mandate mental health coverage. Conservatives kept Presidents Carter and Clinton from adding these entitlements to Medicare. With President Bush pushing the agenda, they aren’t even pretending to oppose these additions.
The president is also leading the fight to extend the child tax credit to low income families excluded from the latest tax cut. He figuratively bitch-slapped Tom Delay and his conservative cohorts who threatened to derail the expanded credit, urging the Republicans to pass the bill quickly and send it to him for his signature. While progressive Republicans like to claim President Bush is following President Reagan’s vision for America, he is actually following President Nixon’s agenda to the letter. President Nixon never tried to eliminate any government program or agency. He expanded government as much as he could. Few people remember that it was President Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Endowment for the Arts. Fewer still remember that it was President Nixon who tied Social Security benefits to the cost of living. President Bush is surpassing President Nixon in advancing progressive social policy.
President Bush is also making talk radio safe for progressives. Hosts who would have railed against President Clinton, or any Democrat, for pushing the progressive agenda President Bush is implementing, excuse this president for it. Many of them attack any conservative who calls to point out that President Bush is a progressive. Even Rush Limbaugh is leery of taking on this president. While he occasionally offers some mild criticism of the president, he always follows that criticism by offering excuses for the president’s actions and progressive domestic agenda. This is partially due to the attacks that come from the Bush cultists any time anyone is anything but worshipful of their guy. Like Democrats who refused to believe that President Clinton was capable of doing any wrong, there is a group of Republicans who would support President Bush no matter how far left he governs. They attack anyone and any group who points out that President Bush is not conservative. Many of these people are domestic progressives who like big government and benefit from government programs. They call themselves conservatives; many of them really think they are conservatives. In fact, they support progressive social programs and most benefit from them. They are critical of the poor who receive government help, but enjoy generous government subsidies of their own lifestyles. Many talk show hosts fall into this category themselves.
The other reason even real conservatives are leery of voicing anything except the mildest criticism of President Bush is they fear retaliation from the administration. They fear being cut off from the information loop. They fear being dropped from the administration’s fax and E-mail grapevine. Their professional status is greatly enhanced by access to administration sources and President Bush is not shy about diminishing or eliminating that access for anyone who puts their principals ahead of support for his agenda.
All things considered, progressives are much better off with President Bush in office than they would be with any of his Democrat challengers. No Democrat on the scene today can come close to matching President Bush’s ability to advance the progressive agenda and marginalize the conservatives in the Republican Party. Four more years of a Bush administration will produce progressive gains that are only matched by FDR’s accomplishments. Rather than being disappointed that they don’t have a Democrat in the presidency, progressives should be thankful they have an ideological soul mate in office. For progressives the cry should be “FOUR MORE YEARS!”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Bender is a freelance writer from Dallas, Texas. His columns have appeared in The Dallas Morning News, Ether Zone, Right Magazine, The Sierra Times, USA Daily and other print and online publications. Your feedback is welcome.
A rather silly hobby.
Surely one would be better served learning to use some common sense.
As much as some here will gnash their teeth, pound their fists, stomp their feet, and incessantly whine, GWB will be President for eight years.
Yes, it would. It's being done today. It's called 'deficit spending'. Only the deficit would be higher.
Would a $2 trillion annual fed. deficit be good? After all, we are told that the current $300-400 billion is okay. Would a $500 billion per annum deficit still be okay? How about $600 billion? $700 billion? $1 trillion?
W. is better than Gore only in a matter of degree. That difference is getting smaller and smaller.
I just caught your fine article, John, but must run back to the salt mines.
You really are on the mark and know how to make a splash after two months away from FR;^)
Wow, your manipulation of the facts would do Clinton proud. She was fired on 1/19 by Clinton so the fact that she was unemployed on 1/20 when Bush was inaugurated is Bush's fault.
How very creative of you.
Wrong answer. Tehcnically Americorps is not called that any more, it's called "Freedom Corps" now. Same hunk of crap different packaging with a ton more spending.
You're going to tell me that you didn't know this until now or are you going semantic on us?
How can you be so crude?
That's like saying words have meaning.
In the past and presently the Demos stood and stand for 'tax and spend'. The Clinton era surpluses were achieved by OVER-taxing and spending. The hope was that the new GOP-controlled executive would address the over-taxation problem and reduce spending. After all, the GOP used to advertise themselves as the 'small government' pary.
It didn't happen. Under George W. Bush, federal spending continued to increase. Apparently it increased faster than under Clinton's. That coupled with some very limited income tax decreases (due to expire soon) changed Clinton's surpluses into Bush's enormous deficits.
Meanwhile, the GOP propagandists who kept claiming for all those years that we had to get rid of the government's deficit spending, are now deficit's enthusiastic proponents. They are not like the Dems before they prefer to emphasize borrow and spend rather than tax and spend at this time. But... as their little tax decreases expire and spending keeps growing exponentially, they will soon make the case for borrow AND tax AND spend.
I'll answer that when the "author" provides specifics of which federal taxes are being raised and by how much, and what the total federal tax burden will be in comparison to previous and future years after those increases are implemented and in comparison to the what the current tax year would have been without all current year tax changes.
So far all the author has told us is that federal taxes are being increased. Should we simply take him at his word? ;)
How very creative of you.
Sorry, can't take credit for W's lack of certain moral qualities. Gratitude being one of them.
OK I'll buy that
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.