BUDGET INCREASE FOR THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT OF THE ARTS

The Drudge Report ^ | 01-28-2004 | Matt Drudge

[Captain Peter Blood]

BUSH TO SEEK BIG BUDGET INCREASE FOR NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS... Laura Bush plans to announce the request -- for the largest increase in two decades -- on Thursday... Developing...

[Heartbreak of Psoriasis]

I'm the first to admit that Pat is far from perfect, but at least he says the right things.

As far as I know, Pat is against the socialist welfare spending Bush II is cramming down my throat. He spoke out, nearly alone on the right, against this latest Trotskyite Internationalist war that Bush II connived us into.

And c'mon, you can't impugn PJB with "cosying up to Marxists" when the neo-cons run the GOP and as unrepentant Trotskyites.

I freely admit that PJB ran a disastrous campaign in 2000 that was frankly so bad that one must suspect his sincerity.

I'm a member of the Conservative Party now. To paraphrase Lincoln, we should stand with a man while he's right and part with him when he goes wrong. Clearly, the GOP leadership has gone so far wrong that Lincoln himself would instruct those loyal to his ideas to abandon the GOP and find something else. The first order of business is to stop lending active support to our enemies - represented by the Karl Roves of the world.

Isn't this nicer than ad hominem attacks?

[Texasforever]

and so they support Bush II and his guns-and-butter fiscal irresponsibility.

You are using every populist sound bite in the book. I have nothing against populists; I do however have a real problem with them attempting to hide behind the conservative banner. Now down to business. You want Bush defeated. In that area you are in the same camp as the liberals. You are, by definition, a member of the opposition.

[Texasforever]

but at least he says the right things.

Of course he does. He knows he can say anything he wants without any possibility he would have to put his rhetoric into practice. That is the entire lure of 3rd party candidates. They can promise heaven on earth and never have to deliver it. They do make a nice living losing though.

[Heartbreak of Psoriasis]

You are, by definition, a member of the opposition.

I fully agree that I'm utterly opposed to the treasonous neo-cons and all they stand for. I'm opposed four-square to Bush II's lies about WMD and Iraqi connections to terrorism, and I'm eight-square against his treasonous refusal to enforce our immigration laws and allowing a silent invasion of our sovereign territory even after we were attacked by illegal immigrants. I'm sixteen-square against his waffling on social issues and his lukewarm, purely palliative efforts to appoint strict constructionists to the bench.

As we say in Wisconsin, ya sure ya betcha I'm opposed to Bush II, and frankly I'd prefer to see Bush II's doggie (what's its name) elected to the office than him.

No doubt. I'm in the opposition.

It's always the case in war that the enemy is most dangerous when he's out of uniform and behind your own lines. The Democrats are the uniformed regulars of the Army of Treason, but the neo-cons are their fifth column. The first order of business is to terminate the neo-con subversion, and then we'll be able to fight the regulars without having to watch our own backs.

They're the same, Mr. Texas. DemonRats = Pubbies.

But of the two, the Pubbies are the more dangerous, because we think they're our own.

[Texasforever]

because we think they're our own.

I thought you had abandoned the "pubbies" so how can they be OUR own? You have a very hard time keeping your arguments on track.

[iconoclast]

I try to find a Bushbot post before going to work in the morning .... start the day with a good belly laugh!

[Texasforever]

OK let's go to the summation. You are a PJB populist

If you knew then what you know now you would have not voted for Reagan

The GOP is more dangerous than the Democrats

The "neocons" are the nations most imminent threat.

I would suggest that your entire outlook is in complete agreement with the most fringe of the left fringe and that you should join them in their efforts to rid the country of all GOP office holders. BTW, put some chewing tobacco on that rash.

[iconoclast]

Contract with America, read it, it is in this thread somewhere and it is what brought the GOP into power.

And then lost it 2 years later. Give up, you can't win with that one.

Sorry Wrongforever, Bob Dolt and the Stupid Party brain trust lost it.

[ovrtaxt]

I would suggest that your entire outlook is in complete agreement with the most fringe of the left fringe and that you should join them in their efforts to rid the country of all GOP office holders.

Ah, the brilliant debating tactic of calling your opponent a leftist when you have been backed into a corner. Yeah, that's convincing.

Too bad vitoryovertheleft was banned for being a troll. You could have used some help defending this ridiculous NEA proposal from such a master-debater.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Heartbreak of Psoriasis]

OK let's go to the summation. You are a PJB populist If you knew then what you know now you would have not voted for Reagan

No, I'm a conservative, member of the Conservative Party. I never regretted voting for Reagan, who kept faithfully the key promise not to raise taxes. He also stared down the Soviet Union, so I'll cut the man some slack. The question was whether I would have supported Reagan increasing taxes to fund the NEA, and the answer is no, I wouldn't have.

The GOP is more dangerous than the Democrats

Yes, they are more dangerous than the Democrats. The GOP has run up more red ink through massive socialist spending increases. They're more dangerous than the Democrats, because their crypsis makes them more effective.

The "neocons" are the nations most imminent threat.

Yes, clearly the greatest threat to our freedom are those who engineered this latest war and the concommitant attack on the Constitution in the form of the Homeland Security Act. The people who are now in office and who refuse to stop the ongoing invasion from Mexico in defiance of our laws and after we were attacked by illegal aliens are the problem of the moment.

I would suggest that your entire outlook is in complete agreement with the most fringe of the left fringe and that you should join them in their efforts to rid the country of all GOP office holders.

No, quite to the contrary. My opinions are fully in accord with the beliefs of greats like Lincoln. You are the one who supports the party of big government, socialist nanny-state programs, and foreign wars. I'm a conservative, precisely because I'm against all of those things and for traditional marriage and family, strictly limited federal government, states' rights, an end to affirmative action, a non-interventionist foreign policy, an end to the income tax, and so on and so forth. The GOP largely overlaps with the liberals on all of those issues, and the closer one gets to the top of the GOP leadership, the greater the overlap. Clearly, the GOP and its supporters are the "liberals", inasmuch as Bush II supported affirmative action, signed into law massive socialist welfare spending increases, took us to war based on lies and misrepresentations, and waffles on the homosexual agenda (Dick Cheney's little girl, remember her?).

Who's the liberal, Mr. Tex? If you support a party that supports all those things, then by any traditional definition of the word you are the liberal leftist.

The neo-cons are Totskyites, and true to form they pulled off the ultimate Frankfurt School/neo-Marxist trick of re-defining the term "conservative" in the mind of the masses to its exact opposite, via media manipulation. You seem to have bought into this trick of "re-defining" basic concepts out of existence (as they're now trying to "re-define" marriage into oblivion).

If "conservative" means a policy of Trotskyite internationalist wars, massive socialist welfare spending, vast expansion of federal police powers (including the proposed legalization of torture), and open borders that make a mockery of our national sovereignty, then yes the GOP and its supporters are "conservatives."

And yes, if "conservative" means what "Marxist" and "Leftist" used to mean, then those like me who believe in the ideas of the Founders to limit the federal government strictly, to ensure a "republic" instead of a herd "democracy", to protect our sovereignty at all costs, to ensure the limited sovereignty of the several states, and to avoid messy foreign entanglements and foreign wars, and so on and so forth, are "populists."

But since we're haggling over terms, perhaps we could agree to define Republicans as "Conservatives, formerly known as Trotskyites". You know, sorta like "the Artist, formerly known as Prince." And my side could be called "Populists, formerly known as conservatives and stalwarts of the Party of Lincoln."

Agreed?

BTW, put some chewing tobacco on that rash.

As to the snoos juice suggestion, I don't chew. Do you?

But thanks for the helpful suggestion.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, I've supported Bush so far, but this is probably the thing that will push me over the edge.

Oh, I'll hold my nose and vote for him in November ONLY because the best Demoncrat is unacceptable for national security.

BUT, to me the increasing, as opposed to cutting or eliminating, the National Endowment for the Arts, is craven, stupid, pandering to people who hate everything America stands for. And, I'm a musician! I'm concerned about the loss of orchestras and live music, but I'm sure as hell not in favor of dipping the government's hands into the pockets of people who don't want to pay for culture in order to feel good.

[gatorbait]

I have yet to see someone explain the political logic behind this proposal. How can Bush possibly think that it is going to garner more votes from the left than it will lose on the right??

Maybe because he is not aiming for the Left. He knows they won't ever bend.He also knows none of the true.principled conservatives ever voted for him ,either.He is aiming at the big soft middle , which does show up on election day.Those would be my thoughts on this. By the way, this NEA thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as a potential Surrender Party President giving up smashing the jihadis to have "peace" in our time.ensuring we won';but then,we all know the NEA is much more important than National Security and winning the War against murdering Jacobian scumbags.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

My sentiments exactly.

I have lost a lot of respect for Bush and, absent the War on Terror, I would not even consider voting for him in November.

(Although Bush most likely has my vote, Jeb shouldn't even consider running as far as I'm concerned, because I've had it with the family.)

[Huck]

Oh my gosh. This is so surprising. Gubmint spending more of my money. Who'd a thunk it?

[Johnny_Cipher]

I'm not going to get into it on this thread, but I'm just scratching my head that this is the thing that is setting some folks teeth on edge.

Speaking strictly for myself, the reason this is the straw that made the camel call the chiropractor is that I can make a logical case in my own mind for most government funding, but simply can't see the need or reason for a publicly-funded NEA. Almost to a piece, great works of art of the past were funded by non-democratic governments, private individuals or groups, or the church (a quasi-voluntary association). Some were even produced because the artist hadto produce it and (gasp) paid for the materials himself.

If my bank account at home is running short of zeroes, I certainly don't rush out to the local starving artists fair and buy up a bunch of paintings to put on my living room walls. We are at war, and I firmly believe that we have better and more pressing needs for our treasure than Piss Christ or the "Sensation" exhibit (the elephant dung monstrosity).

We need a new Lorenzo Medici, without access to the public treasury.

[Commie Basher]

It's Bush's "brilliant" triangulation policy -- socialize American before the Dems do it!

The result: more people will vote Republican.

The cost: those victorious Republicans will rule a socialist America.

This November, I'm voting Libertarian!

[Maurice1962]

I am far far from liberal. There is a verse that says to whom much is given much will be required. This man has unprecedented support and opportunity. He rose to the occasion and did wonderfully when the country wss hurting. His tax cuts are the right medicine. But folks do not be fooled to believing that liberal policies and spending are conservative. Long haul or short run, right is always right.

Yeah, I took a pot shot, and maybe a mean one. Get over it. Signing and 300+ billion dollar omnibus bill then proposing more and more while saying you are freezing spending sounds like double speak to me.

Pandering is what this president is doing, if he is a conservative. Because these late proposals are not conservative.

I will vote for him and I will criticize on the things that I perceive are wrong. This forum is a good place for that type of release.

Right now I am proclaiming the President No Clothes On. Better go back and get dressed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It's voluntary, and doesn't prevent anyone who wants to break the law from breaking it."

Now, there's a brilliant statement.

All laws are voluntary, including the laws against murder, but it doesn't prevent people from murdering people.

[Maurice1962]

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America. http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html