CATO Institute lambastes President Bush

CATO Institute ^ | July 31, 2003 | Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

[Ohioan]

The idea that the President is just speaking out about Terrorism is just plain silly. He is speaking out, all the time, about a great many other issues--some current and some historic. The fact that when he does speak on issues, his words are less and less often promoting the Conservative view on those issues, but confirms the points that some of us have made here.

It is all very sad, to be sure. Hopefully, discussions such as this will wake someone up inside the Beltway. Otherwise, the immediate future is less than merely grim.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Recovering_Democrat]

You guys don't mind losing ground ... just elections.

Somehow that makes you feel like winners.

Reality bites, eh? :) Look, and I say this respectfully: You've got 2 choices in this country: Democrat or Republican. There is a huge difference between these choices, regardless of whether or not the idealogues want to acknowledge the same. Being a recovering Democrat, I gladly support the Republicans with my time, money, and votes. Such will it be for a long, long time to come.

[BlazingArizona]

Cutting gov't to pre-Coolidge like levels isn't on the national radar, so promoting a candidate with rollback in mind isn't going to get you far, except a few pats on the back from DC based think tanks and their supporters.

I'm all for the pragmatic incremental approach, but consider that we're now three years into a Republican administration that has the Senate and House behind it, and We've still got Amtrak! Amtrak!

They're not even trying.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Who is looking for an ideal world?

Common sense, government restraint and responsibility is not too much to ask. Personally, I have given up on the RP making the argument for small government. And to be honest I think they are trying to build the "ideal world" through government and my famliy's resources. They need the reality check.

I refer the right honorable gentleman to my previous comments regarding the reality of politics in the modern world. :)

[Recovering_Democrat]

I'm all for the pragmatic incremental approach, but consider that we're now three years into a Republican administration that has the Senate and House behind it, and We've still got Amtrak! Amtrak!

They're not even trying.

Whoa whoa whoa. When/how did the President--as a candidate--say he would cut AMTRAK? How big a priority should eliminating AMTRAK be on the President's "to do" list? But, lest we think the President loves the status quo on the boondoggle that is AMTRAK, let us look at the Bush plan to MOVE AMTRAK to a "privatized", for-profit plan:

MACOMB - Directly following a proposal to increase fiscal year 2004 funding to the levels requested by the Bush administration comes the president's proposal for revamping inter-city rail service - let the states do it.

Transportation secretary Norman Mineta submitted to the Congress a three-step plan to create private passenger rail companies that would operate trains under contract to states and multi-state compacts much in the same way Amtrak currently operates trains under contract to commuter rail agencies.

The Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003 would also create a private rail "hardware" company to maintain and operate the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor contractually for a multi-state Northeast Corridor Compact.

source URL: http://www.macombjournal.com/articles/2003/08/01/news/news6.txt

[Tarl]

just speaking out about terrorism?? Somewhere there is a disconnect there. I was only implying the President is focusing his efforts/concentration on standing up to terrorism and that, yes, it risks drawing his attention away from domestic policies. There needs to be some support/forgiveness from his constituent base so the endless attacks don't divert him from the task he has given himself: confronting terrorism. Terrorism is like a large scale version of a sniper. During war, snipers are invaluable yet despised as cowards since they are incapable of confronting an army yet create an atmosphere of impending fear that immobilizes the actions of an army till the snipers are routed out. Terrorists, like snipers, must be routed out from their safe havens. They are inspired by perceptions of weakness, our President has the necessary resolve but his political attackers undermine the perception of his resolve.

[KriegerGeist]

George W. Bush is probably trying to buy votes from voting blocks that Republicans are rapidly losing...

Voters by race and sex:
I. Whites:
A.White men: = 50 percent will vote Democratic?
B. White women:
1. Single women(college?) = 99 percent will vote Democrat?
2. Single never married women w/children = 80 -90 percent will vote Democrat?
(need "Big Government to be their husband?) I say a high percent.
3. Divorced women w/children (single parent) = 80 -90 percent will vote Democrat?
(also need "Big Government to be their husband?)
4. White married women w/children: = 50 percent will vote Democrat?

II. Blacks:
A. Black men: = 99 percent will vote Democrat
B. Black women: = 99 percent will vote Democrat

III. Hispanics:
A. Hispanic men: = 99 percent will vote Democrat
B. Hispanic women: = 99 will vote Democrat

IV. Asians:
A. Asian men = 80 - 90 percent will vote Democrat? Anybody's guess?
B. Asian women = 80 -90 percent will vote Democrat? Anybody's guess?

V. Elderly members of AARP on Social Security & Medicare of all colors = 80 percent will vote Democrat?

[Ohioan]

If the President wanted some sort of moratorium on other issues--and while dealing with the Terrorist threat from Internationalist groups who hate America is serious, it is not serious enough to declare a moratorium on all other issues--he would not be pushing the envelope to the Left on Medicare, Education, Aids, etc.. If he insists on pushing a point of view that is antithetical to beliefs that many of us hold sacred, he leaves us no choice but to push back. You are addressing your appeals in the wrong direction.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[budwiesest]

The deficit scenario may have an outcome that I'd like to see avoided at all cost. Let's say the economy begins to rebound from the stimulus, yet not as quickly as the administration plans.

Along comes a Dem with the "I'ts the economy, stupid" signs and here we go again: another democrat riding the wave of economic and global reforms provided by a republican administration for four or eight years.

That an economy with interest rates as low as they've been lately needs any stimulus in the form of deficit spending says a lot. With all the time and effort that will go into making fixes to this 'house' of ours, it will only be in vain should a democrat move in next year. There goes the neighborhood.

The answer may be to deprive them of a 'new' home. Get back to the basic function of government and get off people's backs and out of their pockets. Allow the markets to respond to people's needs. Give the voters something with which to contrast the democrat method of solving problems which is throwing other people's money at them.

[Tarl]

From just a Conservative viewpoint your concerns are valid. He didn't campaign as a strict party conservative, but as a compassionate conservative. Smaller Gov't means reducing programs that aren't essential, sort of a "tough love" kind of thing but compassionate conservative is one who tries to tow the line but will use discretion spending to fund areas of policy where he feels a compelling concern to spend our tax dollars. He probably feels strongly about the suffering of aids in Africa and since our war on terrorism has alienated the UN, he can't influence others to bear the burden so he has risked political constituency for something he believes in. Isn't that true leadership to risk self interest(his political ratings) for something he believes?

[ovrtaxt]

Teddy did end up supporting the drugs bill. Other Dems did not want to give W the legislative win. But even there, Teddy was probably acting out of the honest belief that it was good to get that entitlement enacted and this was its last best chance, given the coming wave of Republican dominance.

Your paragraph above perfectly illustrates my point. So W gets a 'legislative win'. Big deal! The result is further growth of the welfare state. I hardly consider it a 'win'. Who is the real 'winner' here, W or Ted? I can tell you who the losers are...

[ovrtaxt]

I even voted for that doofus Dole. Folks like you, every four years, warned me about "wasting" my vote. Hell, with the exception of Reagan, I've been wasting my vote for FORTY years. The first step to getting yourself out of a hole is stop diggin!

And what happens in the meantime? A Socialist or Fascist power freak comes along because of the split. While I continue to hang by a thread with the Republicans (diet socialism) I will wait for a candidate who truly represents limited government and maximum personal responsibility. But the libertarians, while I agree with them fiscally, have no prayer of winning. The real turn may come with a freer media, if we can last that long without a backbreaking descent into government domination.

[paulk]

This monumental task of confronting terrorism is a 24/7 concentration

BS

There are much bigger risks than some nutty Arabs. Terrorists really are a small problem compared to several other risk factors - including the impoversment of the USA. Socialized Medicine will cause 10s of times as many deaths.

[iconoclast]

the libertarians, while I agree with them fiscally, have no prayer of winning.

It's not about winning!

It's about shaking the daylights out of the Republican Party and bringing an end to tweedledee/tweedledum politics.

[iconoclast]

You've got 2 choices in this country: Democrat or Republican.

We've got the choices we deserve. When you've supported the Pubbies long enough and watched the country go further into the toilet you may change your mind.

[Recovering_Democrat]

When you've supported the Pubbies long enough and watched the country go further into the toilet you may change your mind.

Perhaps. But I think things are getting better...not at the ideal rate, but I dispute the notion we're regressing, despite CATO's attempt to make GW into JC. Coming from the pov that used to believe government owed us all something, I see a real difference between Republicans and Democrats.

And, I take solace in the fact that Democrats hate Bush. Their hatred of him solidifies my support for him more than the attempt to persuade me to reject him.

As an aside, I hear no constructive attempt or real alternative to the President--what is the suggestion, that we vote Libertarian or some other third party? Please.

[iconoclast]

And what happens in the meantime? A Socialist or Fascist power freak comes along because of the split.

There is far more reason to fear the example of the frog in slowly increasing hot water than to fear a most unlikely sudden traumatic lurch to the extrme left or right.

[iconoclast]

And, I take solace in the fact that Democrats hate Bush.

Some of them hate him for the same reason that many Republicans hated Clinton ... he's stealing all their issues.

what is the suggestion, that we vote Libertarian or some other third party? Please.

See my previous posts.

[iconoclast]

President is focusing his efforts/concentration on standing up to terrorism and that, yes, it risks drawing his attention away from domestic policies.

Well, maybe, or maybe it draws the voters' attention away from his failing, non-existent, or incoherent domestic policies.

[Stew Padasso]

Listen. I do not appreciate my hard earned money going to this wasteful, arrogant and thoroughly corrupt system. Like I said, you will hide behind the governments skirt when push comes to shove.

Your belief set is big government and it fully represents the RP as it stands today. Handing over my money to that is only legitimizing and enabling your belief set and that is not wise.

Listen to Louise. It is now patriotic to hand over your money to globalist socialists. No thanks, that is not patriotic, it is just plain stupid.