| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 05/29/2002 10:02:01 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Is George W. Bush becoming the president who just can't say no? Democrats like to paint him in dyed-in-the-wool conservative colors and portray him as even more of an ideological warrior than was Ronald Reagan.
Few would disagree that he is more conservative than was his father, but saying that leaves out a lot. In short, it lacks a recognition of President Bush's highly developed sense of pragmatism and his readiness to compromise —which is infuriating some conservative luminaries who argue his presidency so far is shaping up to be a disappointment when it comes to domestic policy.
Frustration was evident earlier in the year when the White House started backing moderate Republicans over conservatives in GOP primary races around the country. With spending on government programs set to increase by 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to some analyses, grumbling about Bush is mounting within the Republican Party's conservative wing.
Spending on annually funded programs increased about 9 percent in the last two years of the Clinton administration. In the first two years of the Bush administration it is scheduled to grow nearly 15 percent.
Administration officials say they'll control spending once the current terrorist emergency has passed. But conservative critics say the boost in federal spending under Bush isn't just connected with Sept. 11, nor has there been a White House effort to offset additional dollars for defense and national security with reductions elsewhere.
The irate conservatives point to the president's May signing of the most expensive farm-subsidy package in U.S. history, despite objections even by some Republicans who called it a "protectionist boondoggle." Conservative critics say the measures will make U.S. farmers dependent on federal subsidies and that it represents a reversal in the congressional effort since the mid-1990s to curb a trend toward farm price supports. "We seem to have done a U-turn," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) when the bill was passed.
The chorus of conservative disapproval is most high-pitched when it comes to the president's failure so far to veto any legislation that has come his way from Congress, including the recent farm legislation. From libertarians at the Cato Institute to conservatives at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, concern is growing at Bush's reluctance to use his veto powers to curb the free-spending ways of Congress.
Conservatives, including some within his administration, fear Bush fails to appreciate that Congress will be brought to heel only when the White House fires off a veto or two. "Since the fall his aides have kept telling us that they will veto this bill and veto that bill but, when push comes to shove, nothing happens," says a prominent conservative leader.
So far, after nearly 16 months in office, Bush has not exercised a single veto. That contrasts with Reagan, who used to enjoy taunting the then Democrat-controlled Congress by urging Capitol Hill to "make my day" and approve bills he didn't like. Reagan vetoed 70 bills during his first term. Even the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush was tougher than his son — he issued 44 vetoes.
The president's legislative-affairs director, Nick Calio, maintains that Bush often has been able to get his way just by calling attention to his veto power. He has cited a post-9/11 spending bill as an example of where Bush managed to secure some changes as a result of raising the specter of a veto.
But conservative critics are not persuaded. At a private strategy session in the winter, Bush tried to pre-empt complaints by assuring Republican senators that he wouldn't flinch from exercising his veto power. But he was careful not to provide any hostages to fortune by offering examples of what he would strike down.
One of the biggest conservative fears is that the president has bought into the notion that Sept. 11 prompted a sea change in the political outlook of ordinary Americans, causing them to be more willing to tolerate big government and increased government expenditures. Worse still, some argue, Bush is using the terrorism emergency to justify expenditures that have nothing to do with national security.
Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer recently bewailed Bush for justifying farm subsidies on defense grounds. "A national-security crisis provides countless opportunities to camouflage expansions of government power or spending as necessary for the common defense," Palmer cautioned in a Cato policy paper.
The Cato critic also cited the president's State of the Union address, in which Bush promised to increase the funding of police and fire departments, something previously considered to be the responsibility of local governments.
Bush supporters say the president simply is engaging in smart politics. Columnist Tony Blankley, who was the spokesman for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, argues that Bush and his political advisers have made the conscious decision not to get embroiled in a domestic-policy row with the Democrats this side of the congressional polls in November. The idea is to allow the White House to focus the election on national-security issues, which should benefit the GOP.
The downside, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that once the federal spending juggernaut starts picking up speed it can't easily be slowed.
Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.
email the author
You got that right! Only Ralph Nader kept Gore out of the presidency. Too many 'conservatives' would rather be 'right' than win elections and make meaningful change. They seem to get their kicks by out-conserving each other or determining which candidate is the MOST conservative and therefor win the fewest votes.
Sadly, you can safely bet the farm that they will find another Pat or Alan and whine about RINO's all the way to the 2004 election. They are unwilling or unable to learn from history or own their previous follies.
Scary. Bush seems to be beating Democrats by playing their same game and that is very bad for us.
I'm guessing you would be no different. Look, don't play
psychiatrist with me, or other Bush supporters. We are
just fine, thank-you! I can't speak for other people, but I
support G. Bush and D. Cheney, and their administration,
and I'm proud of it. If you can't agree, that's your right. But
let me, and others support who we want. You're no more
pure, conservative, or generally better than the rest of us!
Some people on this website do. It's inaccurate, immature, and quite ironically, just what the liberals do when someone disagrees with them!
Many economists say anything. Tax cuts alone do not decrease government growth. The government doesn’t operate on a real budget; it grows like cancer without regard to the health of the body (republic).
As far as budget growth overall, I (and I assume most others) don’t have any problem increasing DOD outlays during “war.” However, the increases are in no way limited to defense. War is a great excuse to pass all sorts of horrid legislation and increases in federal powers. That doesn’t mean it is right, nor true.
Reductions in America's nuclear arsenal will not hurt our military effectiveness. The recent agreement with Prez Putin, is for strategic weapons and doesn't apply to any tactical nuclear arms. Besides, they're not being destroyed, just warehoused. Having 1700-2200 nuclear weapons on hand, is more then enough firepower. This wasn't a political ploy, because Bush intended on reducing the nuclear numbers with, or without the Russians agreement, unilaterally.
I thank you for your opinion on nuclear readiness. The fact is that the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war. Bush’s posture is similar to having armed guards without ammunition. Yes, they can respond, but it may be too late.
Tactical nukes are not a deterrence, strategic nukes are. And yes, that is my opinion. I didn’t care for Bush 1’s decision to get rid of SAC and closewatch either.
Military women defending our country overseas can't terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy at a Military hospital, even if they pay for it and a Doctor agrees to do it, unless it's rape, incest or it endangers the mother's life. In rape or incest cases, the servicewoman must pay for the abortion.
I really dropped the ball here. I am glad to hear it. W has been pretty good with pro-life issues and I hope he continues. I believe he is honestly pro-life. Overall, I think he is a good man, but not exceptionally conservative.
I don't want any land, I just want your explanation of the deal that occured, between Bush and the RoC.
I have no idea of the deal that occurred; however, I have no doubt one did. How long before Kennedy’s deal with Kruschev was made public?
Bush isn't a dictator, he's a democratically elected leader, whose party controls one of two, chambers of the Congress and with a slim majority too boot! Wake up already!!
Duh, really? I though he would be able to use the “bully pulpit” without becoming a dictator. He could have at least backed Pickering and made some noise!!
As far as EOs go, just because something is hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. The “monuments” are nothing but monumental abuse of property rights. It’s worth fighting for! Bush would gain a huge block of voters if he would stand with the common man against the environmentalists and bureaucrats. Yes, my mind is closed because I have principles. I don’t believe in leaving a wrong because fighting to rescind it is hard.
As far as investigations, I don’t care about investigations. Political isolation works just as well. Everyone knows it is damn-near impossible to fire civil servants, but there are ways to remove them from power. The Clintonites need to be eviscerated!
I support Bush, but I can still hope for better from him. Gridlock is good, but only when it paralyzes the behemoth. I don’t want efficient government; I want less government! I believe Bush is a good, moral man, but he is not a conservative saint, nor a political fighter. (And no I never said he is a coward--he is a deal-maker.) Patriotism and love have a lot in common— honesty is foremost and we should set the bar high and expect results.
|
|
||
It seems Bush got what he wanted on an energy-related issue today: $235 million in federal funds used by the President to shelter Florida's Everglades and beaches from oil and gas drilling. The settlement buys out nine oil and gas leases to prevent drilling in Gulf of Mexico areas closest to Pensacola, and does not require legislation and will proceed without Congressional approval. Bush has repeatedly said that we need to become less dependent from foreign oil, and yet off the coast of Florida there are potentially vast reserves of oil and natural gas.
Could the rationale for this action possibly be because the President’s brother is Governor of Florida who is running for re-election, or is it “because I don’t understand politics?”
By the way, I am awake, although this administration is beginning to make me feel that it’s all actually a bad dream.
When it comes to economics, I'll put my trust in those professionals who are the experts in the field and whose opinion, I value. And I never said tax cuts alone, decrease government growth. It's a fact though, that reducing taxes takes money out of the government coffers and leaves less for Congress to spend. That's basic economics 101.
>>>The fact is that the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war.
That's not true. Strategic weaponry are ICBM`s. As in, weapons designed or trained to strike an enemy, at the sources of his military, economic, or political power. There were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles, targeted at the US during the Cold War. Today, there are fewer then 7,000 and that will soon be down to 1700-2200. The Red Chinese have anywhere from 18 to 50 missiles that could reach California. May be. The British and the French have no reason to attack us with nuclear weapons. Just who should America be afraid of? Korea? India? Pakistan? Iraq? Iran? These countries don't have strategic capabilities that could reach the US. I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM. May be a tactical nuke, may be a dirty bomb, but not a strategic WMD.
>>>However, the increases are in no way limited to defense. War is a great excuse to pass all sorts of horrid legislation and increases in federal powers. That doesn’t mean it is right, nor true.
I gave you the link to the 2003 Fderal Budget. It increases spending on mandatory programs, from $1.133 trillion to $1.159 trillion. That's an inflationary increase of 2.2% and mild by comparison to recent Clinton budgets.
>>>I though he would be able to use the bully pulpit...
As Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle has become the greatest obstructionist in recent memory. He is doing a good job of striking down, whatever the President wants done and burying every piece of legislation that lands on his desk.
>>>As far as EOs go, just because something is hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on your politics. The two articles I linked for you, explains the difficulties in reversing older EO`s. The last minute EO`s, that Clinton put through, never say the light of day. And if you're POTUS, you don't make unnecessary waves, that could come back to haunt you, down the road. Even the Founding Fathers understood how to play politics. In fact, most of them were masters at politics.
>>>Bush would gain a huge block of voters if he would stand with the common man against the environmentalists...</i.
Bush has stood up to environmentalists. That's what Kyoto was all about and his reversal of the Clinton EO that effected CO2 in the air and lead content of water. Remember?
>>>Yes, my mind is closed because I have principles.
Having principles, doesn't mean you should have a closed mind and compromise plays a big part in politics.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
>>>I don’t want efficient government; I want less government!
I want both an efficient and smaller government. Cutting waste, fraud and abuse would help to give us a smaller government. Tax cuts/tax reform would even shrink the government further. The idea is to stop feeding the bloated bureaucracy in Wash-DC and the size and scope, power and influence of government, will get smaller over time.
The problem with this poll, as with most polls, is that it is idiotic: we have no idea exactly what it is people approve about the job Bush is doing, and what it is, if anything, they dislike about it.
It is akin to calling someone on the phone and asking them what the weather is outside, and they say: Oh...we had a nice day today. This, versus calling a meterologist in the same locale and getting all the various readings at his disposal.
I dislike polls in general, but think that at least polls that ask specific questions have at least *some* nominal value; this poll does not, in my opinion.
Tuor
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.