Posted on 07/04/2003 3:57:37 PM PDT by sarcasm
Red GeorgeJul 3rd 2003
From The Economist print edition
Meet America's most profligate president since the Vietnam war
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOST people only have to see the word Medicare and they turn the page. Please resist, just this once. There are few better ways of understanding America's emerging Republican establishment than studying the two Medicare bills that are currently working their way through Congress.
These bills point to two conclusions that are worth pondering by people who don't give a fig about co-payments. The first is that the Republicans are mighty shrewd when it comes to short-term political manoeuvring. The second is that they are almost completely indifferent to the basic principles of sound finance.
Start with the politics. Ever since Lyndon Johnson introduced Medicare in 1965 as one of the edifices of his “Great Society”, Democrats have been taunting the Republicans as hard-hearted bastards who don't give a damn about the elderly. What better way to shut the Democrats up than a new $400 billion drugs benefit? Congress still has to reconcile the Senate and the House versions of the bills, a procedure that could take until the autumn. But few people doubt that the law will eventually pass—and that Mr Bush will enthusiastically sign it. This will also reinforce the Republicans' claim that they are better at getting things done than Democrats (who, in Republican lore, ran Congress for decades without doing anything about drug prices).
Nice Bill Frist, the do-gooding doctor who replaced Trent Lott as Senate majority leader, will be able to boast that he has passed a major Medicare reform within a year of taking up the job. Mr Bush will be able to go into the next election armed with yet more proof that he is both a “compassionate conservative” and a “reformer with results”—a man who has not only toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein but also reformed education and Medicare. Republicans are already bragging that Mr Bush's embrace of Medicare reform is the same as Bill Clinton's embrace of welfare reform back in 1996—a manoeuvre that magically transforms a liability into a strength.
There is, however, one tiny difference. Welfare reform was an admirable policy that led to a sharp reduction in welfare rolls. Medicare reform is lousy policy. The Republicans have given up any pretence of using the new drug benefit as a catalyst for structural reform. They are doing nothing to control costs or to target government spending on people who really need it. They are merely creating a vast new entitlement programme—a programme that will put further strain on the federal budget at just the moment when the baby boomers start to retire.
This might be tolerable if the Medicare boondoggle were an isolated incident. But it is par for the course for this profligate president. Every year Mr Bush has either produced or endorsed some vast new government scheme: first education reform, then the farm bill, now the prescription-drug benefit. And every year he has missed his chance to cut federal pork or veto bloated bills.
As Veronique de Rugy of the Cato Institute points out, federal spending has increased at a hellish 13.5% in the first three years of the Bush administration (“he is governing like a Frenchman”). Federal spending has risen from 18.4% of national income in 2000 to 19.9% today. Combine this profligacy with huge tax cuts, and you have a recipe for deficits as far ahead as the eye can see.
Why has the self-proclaimed party of small government turned itself into the party of unlimited spending? Republicans invariably bring up two excuses—the war on terrorism and the need to prime the pump during a recession; and then they talk vaguely about Ronald Reagan (who sacrificed budget discipline in order to build up America's defences).
None of this makes much sense. The war on terrorism accounts for only around half the increase in spending. The prescription-drug entitlement will continue to drain the budget long after the current recession has faded. As for Mr Reagan, closer inspection only makes the comparison less favourable for Mr Bush. The Gipper cut non-defence spending sharply in his first two years in office, and he vetoed 22 spending bills in his first three years in office. Mr Bush has yet to veto one.
The real reasons for the profligacy are more depressing. Mr Bush seems to have no real problem with big government; it is just big Democratic government he can't take. One-party rule, which was supposed to make structural reform easier, also looks ever less savoury. Without a Congress that will check their excesses, the Republicans, even under the saintly Dr Frist, have reverted to type: rewarding their business clients, doling out tax cuts and ignoring the fiscal consequences.
This opportunism may win Mr Bush re-election next year, but sooner or later it will catch up with his party at the polls. The Republicans are in danger of destroying their reputation for managing the economy—something that matters enormously to the “Daddy Party” (which sells itself as being strong on defence and money matters). The Democrats can point out that Bill Clinton was not only better at balancing the budget than Mr Bush. He was better at keeping spending under control, increasing total government spending by a mere 3.5 % in his first three years in office and reducing discretionary spending by 8.8%.
The Republican Party's conservative wing stands to lose the most from this. Some conservatives credit Mr Bush with an ingenious plan to starve the government beast: the huge tax cuts will eventually force huge spending cuts. But this is rather like praising an alcoholic for his ingenious scheme to quit the bottle by drinking himself into bankruptcy. There is no better way to stymie the right's long-term agenda than building up the bureaucracy (government being a knife that only cuts leftwards). And there is no better way to discredit tax cuts than to associate them with ballooning deficits. For the moment Mr Bush is still the conservatives' darling. Will they still love him a decade from now?
Of course... I'm not saying they agree on much. But like you say, in practice, the results of their actions (which I'm most concerned with) end up looking very much the same. I don't imagine Pat Buchanan and labor union leaders agree on much... but on the freedom of trade, one of the key freedoms at the base of all others, they are hand in hand. And that's no accident and nothing new.
It's painfully ironic that the people with the shortest time left in society are the cause of the backbreaking tax burden upon those young people who will be around much longer and suffer from today's (unsustainable) massive wealth transfer to the elderly.
Ah yes, I knew there was something bout you that gave me some hope for ya!! As Lewis Grizzard would say, "Bless you my brotha!!"
BTW, after the first couple of games, I think you will find that our OL is gonna be bad to the bone. Jean Gilles might be AA this year. Don't think he's going to be around long.
Right on,"T"...Your whole statement, expresses, exactly my position on this issue.
I think you are speaking of the SA, or Brown Shirts, whose leader was Ernest Rohm, a gay man. In fact, it was common knowledge that they were nearly all gay. Kinda funny how they were gay, and some of Hitler's most effective street thugs at the same time. Interesting. Anyway, they were lured to a meeting out in the sticks where they were all locked up and machine gunned to death if I'm not mistaken.
No I expected him to do what he ran on. I know that's a lot to ask of professional politicians from either side but that's why I still voted for the Republican party in 2000
As The New York Times reported just after Election Day,Mr. Bush's argument that government's role in public life needed to be reduced clearly resonated. That philosophy of restricting government was shared . . . by many voters."Cato Institute December 2000
And after weeks of criticizing Gore's plan to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, Bush has also taken a narrow lead with senior citizens.LA Times Sept 27, 2000-----Bush's strength on those latter questions may reflect a continuing resistance to expanding Washington's reach: Fully three-fifths of those polled say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services, while only one-quarter want a larger government with many services
So let's see Torie. George Bush ran on a smaller government, criticized Gore for suggesting exactly what he is doing now, and a full 60% of the people polled in the LA Times article wanted smaller government. Hmmmmmm, I think I would be working on smaller government instead of trying to appease 1/4 of the population
Frankly, I don't care what the result would be. As the President of these United States, and one that ran on limited government and attacked Gore for suggesting the exact same thing he is doing now, I would expect him to uphold his campaign promises and to uphold the Constitution and the limits of the general government therein. And considering he is doing neither, what do you expect me to say?
And you were the one that said he did not run on such issues. I'll be more than happy to provide more links quoting the man. If he chooses to ignore what he ran on to gain more votes from the left, he may find he's going to be losing more votes from the right.
And why would you think I would want old folks to do something like that? Both my grandparents, God love them, are in a rest home and because of our wonderful government regulations practically had to divest of their entire life savings just to get into a rest home that wasn't a hellhole. I'm not suggesting getting rid of old people. However I am suggesting that if you remove the government, the free enterprise system will take care of the rest. I know there's not much of it left really with one party or another deciding to regulate some industry. You do know what free enterprise is don't you? Being a staunch Republican and Bush fan as you are, I wasn't sure. You guys seem to think government regulation is an acceptable way of life
Who made that argument again in 2000? How is adding more healthcare fulfilling that promise?
I've thought people are overly worried about the OL for awhile now as well. My biggest concerns are at LB and RB (hopefully Kregg Lumpkin will be able to play as a true freshman because I just don't know if Milton is big enough and fast enough to give us a solid running game). And I really hope we can get past the Clemson/SC games safely despite these bozos getting suspended.
With the changes, is Clemson even going to have the time to play SC anymore? BTW, best game I ever saw, 1986 NC State/Clemson. Worst game? The very next year, same game, down at Clemson. LOL
I will take a shot at it...IMO, what Prez. Bush is doing, he is taking the wind out of Dems. sails;
Whitout a platform the Democrats will have zero chance to challenge him in November, as well as the incumbent Republicans and at the same time giving the the Republicans a great deal of an advantage, in challenging the Democrat held positions in the House and Senate.
By doing so, Prez. Bush will strenghten his overall supporter's base in both Houses.
Now, here is the kicker...second term, strong showing in both Houses, nothing to loose, everything to gain/change in the annals of History.
Make radical moves/changes to the most controversial laws, redo past wrongs, without the shadow of reprisal of a next election cycle.
Bonus?...be indicted in the History Books as one of the most gutsiest and bold, no holds barred President.
If anybody can pull this, that would be G.W.Bush!
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.