Posted on 01/13/2004 11:43:35 AM PST by AndyObermann
The Final Straw? Accountability for President Bush
By: Andy Obermann
I’ve finally come to a real dilemma. With Election ’04 on the horizon, this dilemma is growing daily. On one hand, we have the President Bush whose strong stance in the face of international terror has kept us safe and inspired a renewed sense of American patriotism. A man I admire greatly for his courage and leadership. But on the other hand, we have the President Bush whose outrageous spending and domestically liberal policies have practically bankrupted the federal government, forcing almost imperial control over state rights.
It all started with the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed into law on June 8, 2002. The bill, authored by Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, drastically increased, not only spending for education, but federal control over state policies regarding the issue. As an education major, I am witness to the flaws of this legislation. The main problem is educational standards. Let me explain. Each state is federally mandated to administer a standardized test to pupils to evaluate performance. The student performance level on this exam primarily determines federal funding, but may also cause a federal takeover of a school system if performance levels are not satisfactory for a given number of years. The stickler is that states are allowed to determine their own satisfactory performance level. For example, in Missouri, the current level for “proficiency” is 3 (out of 5). In Kansas, our neighbor state, the level for “proficiency” is 2. What does this mean? Quite simply it means, while it may appear that students in Kansas are performing at a satisfactory level, they are actually performing at a level lower than that of Missouri. It may appear that Kansas pupils are competent, but in reality, they are held to lower expectations in hopes of maintaining government funding. Missouri schools will lose funding and be placed on “watch” lists, while Kansas schools will be praised for their “successful” educational programs.
While I’m on the subject of education, what ever happened to the President’s school choice initiative? I, for one, was in full support of the voucher program, as were many of the constituents that got Bush elected in the first place. Maybe he’s waiting for an opportune time to announce a new proposal to Congress, or maybe he just forgot. Who knows? Regardless, the President’s handling of the education system garnered him “Strike 1” in my little book of disagreement.
I thought that this could have been a blunder on the part of the President. After all, all leaders are human and mistakes are going to be made. Then came “Strike 2”.
Last November, the President signed a bill granting tax payer-funded prescription drug coverage to America’s seniors. Congressional Republicans authored the legislation that is supposed to cost $400 billion over the next 10 years, but will be upwards of 2 trillion after subsidies kick in. The subsidies are basically entitlements for corporations—bribes so they won’t drop the current coverage their retirees receive. The program has increased, not only the size of government, which, by the way, Republicans should be against, but the spending rate to boot. It is inevitable that our well-deserved tax cuts will be repealed and raised drastically to pay for this monstrosity. Bush sold the economic welfare of my generation, and undoubtedly many generations to come, to assure a solid voting block of geriatrics come election time. Way to go, Mr. President.
Strike 3” came last March, when the President signed Campaign Finance Reform legislation, better known as McCain-Feingold, into law. While many view the bill as a ban on soft money, they neglect to see the massive encroachment of free speech the legislation entails. Attack ads, funded by Political Action Committees (PACs), are banned 30 days before a primary and 60 days before an election. Regardless of what you think of PACs, the Constitution clearly establishes that “Congress shall make no law abridging…the freedom speech.” If this statement can be used to cover someone burning an American flag, it damn sure covers the right of an organization to run a political ad. I suppose the Supreme Court should be lynched for this one too, since they found it constitutional in review, but had Bush not signed it in the first place, it would be a non-issue.
So I’m fed up, but its not over yet. The President now announces his proposal to basically grant amnesty to illegal aliens, illegally living and working in the United States. Now I know, the President said he was against amnesty and this program in no way grants it, but let’s be real. Amnesty is defined as: A general pardon granted by a government for illegal activities. The President proposal is rewarding those who came to this country illegally, and who work and live in this country illegally, with legal status by granting three-year temporary “work visas”. These visas are renewable—probably until the end of time.
Now I agree, something had to be done to remedy our current border debacle. Getting these people documented was priority one, and I applaud the President for getting this much done. I do realize that it is not feasible to deport these people, as well. But what the President has done is not the answer for which conservatives were looking. Along with getting these people documented, the President should have increased border security, even to the point of putting the National Guard or Army Reserves on the border. Yes, this would take a drastic overhaul of military resources, but it would be a necessary step if one were serious about stifling our now overwhelming illegal immigration situation.
By granting this quasi-amnesty, the President has done nothing but encourage further illegal activity. Yes, the proposal makes clear that it is necessary for these people show proof of employment, but I’m sure ways are being developed to maneuver around that inconvenience as we speak—after all, one isn’t supposed to live and work in this country illegally, in the first place. Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest President in American history, when questioned about granting amnesty in 1986, referred to it as the single biggest mistake of his presidency. President Bush should have learned something from this example. Hopefully Congress will.
By pushing all of this dangerous nonsense onto America, President Bush has taken steps to emphatically alienate his conservative base. He has taken us for granted in a grand series of political maneuvers. Bush expects that with the ultra-left rhetoric from the Democratic candidates and high likelihood that Howard Dean, the most liberal of them all, will receive the nomination, conservatives have nowhere to go—therefore, he can seek to expand his electorate by pursuing this domestically liberal agenda.
On defense, President Bush has no rival. His leadership in the War on Terror, coupled with the enhanced presence of military strength abroad, has satiated conservatives to the point where they are willing to overlook this reckless spending and domestic policies, but is that enough? I’ve defended the President on many occasions when leftists lambasted him for his failures. From tax cuts to terrorism, I have been on the President’s side. But this string of domestic policy has left me outraged and I find it hard to defend.
In the end, I suppose Bush is right, core conservatives have nowhere else to go. I can’t count on any of these democratic candidates to protect us the way Bush has, but it is enraging to sit back and watch Bush sell us down the river on domestic issues in an attempt to assure a second term. This is my quagmire.
The President will most likely be re-elected, and he will most likely get my vote, but I hope he reconsiders the direction he intends to lead this country. If not, it will take decades to undo the damage he has done.
The President will most likely be re-elected, and he will most likely get my vote, but I hope he reconsiders the direction he intends to lead this country. If not, it will take decades to undo the damage he has done.
It will never be undone. What is happening will be the undoing of this nation. In the short term a Democrat would be worse but we will soon be finished none the less.
I got that a lot today. Now I know it's not my computer or my ISP. Thanks for posting that.
Oh wow now I get this strategery! The PUBs make a huge leap to the left and then start crawling back to the right. Ayup, that oughta do it.
This may be a novel approach....but go with me here...how about....we abide by the Constitution! EDUCATION IS A STATE ISSUE! Let every state handle education as it sees fit!
Suppose for an instant, that I work really, really, really hard making a product that I sell to you for next to nothing. In order to "compete" with me, you have to work really, really, really really hard to make the same product and sell it for even closer to nothing...or you could just live the good life by buying my product.
Subsidies and "dumping" by other countries is simply increasing our standard of living at their expense. I'll take it!!! I definitely have NO intention of "competing" against them in busting my a$$ to increase someone else's standard of living!
Even with the GOP running Congress, Clinton managed to do a lot of harm. Don't let the Dems control any part of government. It will only make you more unhappy.
The problem I have is that if it is four more years under a Dim, the GOP will put up a Hurculean effort to fight the liberal agenda of the Dim, for W, they just roll over and accept it.
Thank you for stating what obviously is misunderstood by many in this forum.
For those educated enough to read and comprehend the witten word, perhaps a look at the Republican Platform 2000 would clear away some of the ever present fog that permeates this area of ideas.
I know what you meant. I just turned the phrase around to voting for the evil of two lessers.
What I mean, is I support Bush in almost every area. But his immigration stance is so offensive to me I would vote for another candidate in the next election if I could find one I trusted with the national security. I don't see anyone I trust.
I would like to sit out the election, but Bush will get my vote because the democrats (socialists) are anti American, and worse overall for this country.
They, like Bush will neglect our immigration laws and will weaken our National security and put more liberal judges on the Supreme court. Once again for me unfortunately, it is voting against the socialist alternative. - Tom
Twenty years ago a high school drop out could get a job in construction, trucking, or manufacturing, and still do pretty well for himself. Well enough to own a car and afford some type of housing, by the age of twenty.
One by one these jobs have been outsourced, or filled by a wage suppressing immigrant, lowering the expectation and living standard of many Americans. Such is not suppose to be the case. In raising the boat of third world nations we have sunk the boats of many average Americans. Meanwhile those that stick it out through college are finding their jobs outsourced and their options limited.
You are merely parroting the propaganda of the enemy like a good little public school student. There are not that many white collar jobs and in fact all jobs have been artificially manipulated out of the country, or by immigrants in country all due to deadly socialist government policies and freedom robbing Free Trade.
52 posted on 01/14/2004 5:15:38 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
Scan the whole page for good reading!
Conservative Debate Handbook
If some Arky Bubba drives off the road and knocks down some of your fence, and the Texie Bubba you hire to fix it comes along and does just as much, if not more damage, you fire his @$$.
Time to hire Tancredo.
"The National Population Council reported that 9.9 million Mexicans call America home and that more than 7.82 million of those - or 79 percent - do not have U.S. citizenship. It did not break down how many had legal residence papers."
"According to a RoperASW poll from last year, 83 percent of Americans support mandatory detention and forfeiture of property for illegal immigrants, followed by deportation."
I'm one of the 83%.
If the President Bush or Tom Ridge would announce that in six months they will be paying a $50 per head bounty for each illegal alien on American soil there would be a mad rush for the borders.
A policeman in a car costs the average city about $200 an hour. Helicopters cost at least $2000 an hour with the ground crews. What is the full cost of a teacher per hour? $140.00 or there about.
If we could get illegal aliens to turn each other in, just the ones trying to slip through the net, (I know thousands would attempt it) we would save billions in law enforcement, welfare programs, unemployment, medical care, job training and schools the first year.
Do all this under Executive Order and tell the Courts to back off. This is national security!
Any employer who has employed an illegal alien more than five months from the announcement date will be fined $5000 per employee. One month later enforcement begins. This will give employers 5 months to shed the illegals and hire legally papered actual American citizens.
Then on the announced date, start in a state such as Oklahoma. Well centered, not overly populated and clean the state out. This would give Homeland, INS and Border Patrol time to install their co-agents in various court houses around the country to verify a persons paperwork, i.e.. birth certificates, hospital records, etc.
Go state to state from the epicenter sweeping out the criminals who have successfully avoided suspicion. They already had 5 months to get out, hanging around to test the system carries a SEVERE penalty. They won't be able to say they weren't warned.
Divide a state into quadrants depending on population per square mile., First arrest those whose names were turn in for the bounty. Then others suspected by local law agencies. When arrests slow down, open an adjoining quadrant.
Get caught after the selected dated and the result would be every foreign national who is not in America legally would forfeit all their belongings (houses, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and be deported within 24 hours. These forfeited belongings would then be given to local churches for distribution to the needy in that community. Another cost saver!
This enforcement would apply to illegals from every country in the world, not just Mexico.
Imagine the number of Chinese who would be taking the ship home with everything in the house, new cars, you name it would be on those ships. The thousands of Canadians who decided the USA was better than Canada would be again headed North.
How many schools could be closed? How many hospitals and state paid housing tracts? How many welfare offices? How many planned jail enlargements could be stopped for lack of need?
How many state and federal employees would find out that they have the time to actually give good service to their American customers?
Oh yes, it would be an economic shocker in the amount of taxes that could be reduced or used to actually improve something needed for American citizens, instead of illegal foreigners.
Want an approximate number of the population drop? Try 50 million+ with the majority over 30 years of age, having been illegal residents of America for over ten years.
I've always wondered how many folks are on Medicare that don't deserve it. I'll bet that would save a big chuink of money that could be used for American war veterans and citizens health problems.
Just imagine the frantic squealing from our politicians thinking of the lost votes and contributions. That would be a sideshow worth watching!
Scan the whole page for good reading!
Conservative Debate Handbook
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.