Does focusing exclusively on this question indicate you accept AAABEST's premise that Bush is a big spending, government expander on the farm and education bills, as well as the proposed prescription drugs scheme?
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.
Does focusing exclusively on this question indicate you accept AAABEST's premise that Bush is a big spending, government expander on the farm and education bills, as well as the proposed prescription drugs scheme?
I don't know that any kind of vote that would make the nanny state grow faster is in the best interest of the country.
Since a vote for President Bush is a vote for bigger, more expensive, and faster-growing government, what are you suggesting we do?
Ah, but what if there was a thread on roses?
Hell, they even voted down Armey's "Shall not violate any part of the Constitution" ammendment.. So it is obvious that all parties involved knew what they were doing was wrong, they just didn't care.
Aside from that, the article does make allot of vaild points..
It's not unreasonable to question the "Conservativeness" of the Administrations policies and positions. In fact, I would call that our obligation as informed voters and self proclaimed Conservatives, with our nations best interest at heart.
You know, Saber, that's what I'm trying to figure out myself.
Yes, the government is growing. Do you think it's currently growing faster, slower, or at the same speed as it would have if Gore had been elected instead?
Do you think it will grow faster, slower, or at the same speed if a Democrat is elected in 2004?
The other question to ask is, WHY is the government growing? Can or would any President implement an agenda that most Americans didn't want? Did you read post #140?
The final question is, if most Americans want a bigger government and more socialism, how do we change that?
Do you think it will grow faster, slower, or at the same speed if a Democrat is elected in 2004?
The other question to ask is, WHY is the government growing? Can or would any President implement an agenda that most Americans didn't want? Did you read post #140?I'm afraid I think that if Gore or some other Democrat was President with a Republican Congress, the GOP would be less willing to cave in to the socialist programs that are apparently so dear to President Bush. Not that I can name a Democrat whom I would prefer to Bush, my vote is still his to lose. If the election was held today, however, my enthusiasm for his candidacy would be quite diminished from what it was in 2000.
The final question is, if most Americans want a bigger government and more socialism, how do we change that?
Just checked out your #140.
The government is growing for two reasons. The first is that growth has been locked in through past legislation. The second is that most politicians are cowardly careerists. They would far rather tell Americans what they think they want to hear than even the most mildly unpleasantly of truths.
I don't think that the constituency for socialism is inevitable for the American people, but we'll never know unless we make the case for a smaller, more efficient government. And the case is simple:
Government growth is on a course that will eventually overwhelm the ability of taxpayers to fund it. Unless spending is reined in, our children and grandchildren will have to pay 80% of their incomes in taxes in their peak earning years, because we lacked the will and self-discipline to pay our own way. Instead, we've been led to expect a free lunch, and have willingly followed that greedy path.
The dilemma posed by threads like this one is that, while a decent man, President Bush is a free lunch politician.
Ok, we agree that voting for a Democrat is not an option. I'm personally a little confused though - I thought during the last campaign that Bush was a bit too much of a "big government" candidate - he definitely wasn't even in my "top 5" during the primaries, but I voted for him because I didn't want Gore to win.
But it seems to me that most of the things people are criticizing him for now, he advocated during the campaign. I guess I'm just not as surprised as most people here seem to be.
The second is that most politicians are cowardly careerists. They would far rather tell Americans what they think they want to hear than even the most mildly unpleasantly of truths.
It gets them elected, doesn't it?
I don't think that the constituency for socialism is inevitable for the American people, but we'll never know unless we make the case for a smaller, more efficient government.
I think that is the major question: How do we make that case in such a way that the majority of the American people hear it and buy into it?
Government growth is on a course that will eventually overwhelm the ability of taxpayers to fund it. Unless spending is reined in, our children and grandchildren will have to pay 80% of their incomes in taxes in their peak earning years, because we lacked the will and self-discipline to pay our own way. Instead, we've been led to expect a free lunch, and have willingly followed that greedy path.
I don't disagree at all. Again, my only question is, what constructive things can we do to stop it?
You educate them.. Look at Rush, he does it every day.
He has Conservatives screaming for things that are completely against their own, personal, well being but will benefit us & our nation collectively.
Dubya did this when he supported "privatizing" Social Security.. Remember the hugh boo-boo that was supposed to be? How it was going to "scare off" seniors and cost him the election?
Well, guess what.. It didn't.
People realized he was correct and the strength of his argument won the day.
That said, Dubya in particular and Republicans in general could be doing allot more educatin' than they're doing at present.
I think that is the major question: How do we make that case in such a way that the majority of the American people hear it and buy into it?I'm not surprised by Bush, but disappointed nonetheless. So, I criticize him where I think it's warranted. What really surprises me is the large number of Republicans, as well as posters on this forum, who are unwilling to countenance any criticism of this President.
Besides withholding our votes, what other leverage do we have?
I don't disagree at all. Again, my only question is, what constructive things can we do to stop it?"For the children," with a twist. I think that Americans should be politely shamed at the reality of what the taxes on our kids and grand-kids will be if they continue to expect handouts.
Also, we need to be walking talking civics lessons, and point out that the notion of "entitilements" is incompatible with Constitutional liberty. We need to do this a lot. We need to make the case, in all of its facets, through repetition.
First, though, we need to start. We can't repeat what's never uttered in the first place. Further, we need to utter these truths to our own politicians, in words they'll understand: if they don't listen, their careers and livelihoods will be endangered.
This is why I'm always going on about how the GOP shouldn't take my vote for granted. While I can't imagine voting for a Democrat, I can think of unforgivable sins which would preclude my voting for a given Republican.
I don't think we can only focus on what passes as "constructive." Politicians are simple beasts, and there are times when they won't act without having the electoral gun put to their heads.
That would require turning of the "Who do you want, Hillary?" toggle switch.
A one track mind is a beautiful thing to waste.
By the same token, are we to refrain from criticizing algor because hillary might have been elected?
You can take that line of reasoning way, way down the road if you want to. It twists and turns and generally ends up going places the author never intended.
But, it's the only argument they have.. pathetic and bankrupt as it is.
I love unbounded optimism! ;0)
Yep, let's all relax and enjoy the conservative revolution. (/sarcasm)
I'm not surprised Amelia. That is why I didn't vote for him.
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.