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.
I don't mind that, but these days we vote for the evil of two lessers.(ie illegal immigration, Bush style) - Tom
Our best hope to save the Country at this point is to forget about the presidential election and concentrate on congress.
Today's Republicans not only like Bush personally, they also overwhelmingly support his policies.According to a Pew Center study, 85 percent of Republicans support the war in Iraq, 82 percent believe that pre-emptive war is justified, and 72 percent believe the U.S. is justified in holding terror suspects without trial.
Heaven forbid!!!
Nor do I want republicans running the show like democrats!
Those who argue against this eclectic form of government of ours are wasting their time. The electorate decided long ago that pooling tax revenues for the common good was acceptable. Unconstitutional? Probably. But, short of an armed insurrection those who opppose this accepted idealogy have no chance of enacting the kind of Conservatism they envision. And even by insurrection they will not prevail.
So, the choice is who will be the best stewards of this eclectic form of government unopposed by 70% of electorate? The Republicans will remain my choice.
The Constitution Party, the Reform Party and any other party that springs up touting the platform of no welfare; no immigration; guns; as many as we'd like; no redistribution of income aiding low and middle classes, etc., etc., won't stand a chance in hell.
One of the reasons Liberals are doing so poorly is because nearly all of their early goals have been enacted, and not by fiat, but by the approval of the electorate. And now, their goals extending far beyond what the American electorate considers good eclecticism, have become loopy and as a consequence they are self destructing.
I don't share the notion that not having a loyal opposition is a good thing. I sincerely hope that the Democrat party can produce a Presidential candidate of substance, sometime in the near future (a Sam Nunn, a Pat Moynihan, a Zell Miller) to stop the total destruction of their great Party. A loyal opposition is necessary as a check and balance against the party, any party, in power.
We do have options.
I am still hopeing that President Bush "pulls a rabbit" out of his hat, and makes a good deal of these domestic policies, which I disagree with, make sense to me.
If that doesn't happen then I will not feel responsible for looking at my options. I take my vote seriously.
People can flame me all they want and call me a RINO, because if the Republican party doesn't care about Conservatives one bit, then I am a RINO. But that is not my choice , it is theirs.
President Bush, sir, please help me out here....... I would love to vote for you again, I would love to campaign for you again. Please give me a reason , other than Iraq.
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.