The Final Straw? Accountability for President Bush

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.

Thanks. I don't consider myself a Bush-basher but that's my view. I'm sure many of my posts well fit the criterion for others and it's not my business to set criteria for anyone else.

I do feel rather bleak about our country's direction and prospects at the moment and the President's spending agenda and some other domestic plans weigh heavily on that POV. I don't like coming to conclusions like that.

I would like to see whatever dwarf gets the Dem nomination buried in a landslide of epic proportions. I would like this fall's election to ring like a bell the size of Mt. Everest tolling the death knell of liberalism. Well like the man said you can't always get what you want. Hopefully we will get what we need.

I'll always be making lemonade with my personal lemons; that's not a problem. But there's no reason this country should go into the lemon production business. We need to export success not import the losers to vainly try and share in glory they haven't earned and we need to continue the tradition here not pass on a hollow image of it for future generations to pretend they have it too.

-- Expansion of the govt and spending at a clip only democrats can admire (this is socialism - a philospohy that is antithetical to personal responsibility, to limited government and to biblical principles)-- what a bunch of baloney. Again this has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and love one another as he loved us.

Obeying and enforcing the law is what he is sworn to do. Obeying the law and correctly doing his duty has everything to do with Christianity, which commands honesty and duty and obedience to just laws.

his letter of praise to the gay Metropolitan Church--(contradicts biblical values and his putative family friendly platform); not true, President Bush never praised gay church. (contradicts biblical values and his putative family friendly platform);

Are you in denial? This was reported by more than one news organization with actual quotes, and pro-family organizations reacted to it. It was the Metropolitan Church I believe. Get with it.

; signing of unconstitutional and anti-freedom bills like Patriot Act and CFR (so much for the Bill of Rights!)-- this is unchristian? HA!! are you confused!!!

Well, since the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, and Bush swore on a bible to protect and defend it, what do you think?

I disagree with you and the National Review. President Bush is the only one who has tried to do something about the millions of undocumented illegals who use our hospitals, social services, schools, etc. Instead, the National Review, yourself and others such as Tancredo, believe that sending them back is the only solution. There is no workable situation considered.

Just imagine troops raiding homes and sending back in trains and buses under guard the illegals. Imagine inquiring of all that look like illegals (that might include me)as to identification proving I was an American.

Many of the illegals have children born in the United States and therefore what would you do with their children.?

The brazero program used to exist in the United States. At least President Bush is attempting to tackle the problem. For 8 years under Clinton nothing got done and even before that nothing got done. Why do you think that the immigration laws are not enforced? B/c they are very difficult to do and no one wants to do it is my guess.

And Tancredo wants to pass a bill that denies all illegals medical/social care. Back to asking everyone in the ER if they have insurance, American ID before being treated. Is this what the conservatives really want?

I am curious--what do you think is a good solution to the millions of illegals already living here in the United States?

You have a right to your opinion, but if you haven't already, I'd suggest picking up a copy of the latest edition of National Review. The "Amnesty, Again" article deals with this objection ("Well, we have to do SOMEthing.") It's a valid point, but keep in mind that we already DID something, back in 1986. The reasoning was, "We'll give some amnesties, then work on sealing the border."

Well, that was a crock. After the plan, illegal immigration actually INcreased. We should have sealed the border first, actually enforced the laws against hiring illegal aliens, and after we'd proven that we were reducing the illegal population, THEN we could talk about granting a few amnesties.

Just imagine troops raiding homes and sending back in trains and buses under guard the illegals. Imagine inquiring of all that look like illegals (that might include me)as to identification proving I was an American.

Obviously, that wouldn't work. But it would be a start to first round up and deport all KNOWN illegal aliens.

The brazero program used to exist in the United States. At least President Bush is attempting to tackle the problem.

Yes, I will give him credit for that. I don't think he's doing the right thing to tackle the problem, but at least we've sparked a debate, and I suppose that's the light in this tunnel.

I am curious--what do you think is a good solution to the millions of illegals already living here in the United States?

Personally, I favor the model proposed by the National Review:

1. Deport all illegals who are currently on the list to be deported.
2. Round up all KNOWN illegal aliens and deport them.
3. Actually enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens. Punish businesses who hire them.
4. Once illegal aliens see that there isn't a job market open to them, a lot of them will take the hint and leave.
5. Begin work on an infrastructure that can support the sealing of our borders.
6. Once the infrastructure is in place, test it for 8-10 years, make sure that it is actually decreasing the illegal population, and THEN discuss possibly giving amnesty to some of the remaining illegals.

It's not that I'm opposed to any and all amnesties. It's just that I am highly skeptical of them, and I think that they should be saved for last, not enacted first. Basically, I think Bush has it backwards.

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.