Maybe Bush is Right On

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 30 January 2004 | Raymond Green

[softengine]

Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.

Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.

As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.

We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.

President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.

So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.

Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.

Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.

Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.

[prairiebreeze]

Well this is moving beyond tiresome but I will state one more time just for you.

I state my view. You disagree or want to argue. I accept that you disagree and/or want to argue. I have no requirement of your agreement or support in order to stand by my beliefs or my post.

You think my post is venomous. I understand that's what you think. I understand that it's hit a nerve which you feel you must respond to. I also sit here, secure in my soul with the knowlege that my words and opinion is actually a rather analytical and dispassionate observation of the childishness that certain posters operate from in their Bush bashing.

To come full circle sauropod, what's one persons observation is another's insult. I have no problem with that at all.

Prairie

[sauropod]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I calls 'em as i sees 'em. If you want to call "juvenile" and "needing instant gratification" "analytical," I guess that word has lost its meaning too.

[sauropod]

Count on it.

[Peach]

Good! Thanks.

[TatieBug]

He's not evil and we just CAN'T vote them back into the Congress or White House. Experience: We couldn't get the McClintock people to come aboard and vote for AAAAArnold but, fortunately enough others were "voting their morals and pocketbooks" and outnumbered the "vote your conscience" people. In November we don't have this luxury in keeping President Bush in office. We are trying to beat B Boxer in CA and the "vote your consccience" people will probably lose that one for us just like last time. Can't imagine how hard some people had to hold their nose for Klintoon...but they did. President Bush perhaps has pushed things we don't like...immigration is off the table thank goodness... but has kept us safe and worked every minute for freedom and to put more money in our pockets. Isn't that more important than the other stuff?

[arasina]

BTW, We got a $300.00 tax break, (Whoopee)...

That's funny. I got a tax rebate check for $300 but right around the same time my paycheck increased without evening being given a raise. How could that be? Well, lookee here! By golly, my Federal tax rate has been lowered! How did THAT happen? You don't suppose it was anything the President fought to get passed by Congress, do ya?

[Maigrey]

Well, let's see

I've not reviewed the funding of the Farm Bill. Would you care to enlighten me?

Pills for Grandma. I'm certainly not keen on the issue, but there are the other points within it, such as privitization of Social Security, tax-free medical accounts, and personal choice on the whole issue. Sure, some seniors will take advantage of the entitlement, and it will cost those of us who are now fully entering the workplace to cover the costs.

I don't agree with it, but I also understand that for innovations and renovations to take place, there must be some initial investment to make the changes. If that means investing now, at 2004 dollars, where in 10 years, when there is a major crunch, the financial impact is even or less, then I would consider it money well invested.

Increased funding for the NEA (assuming this is the National Endowment for the Arts, not the National Education Association):
This is a prototypical liberal funding issue, and I do wish it was abolished, since the only "funded" art is the administrators, and wishy-washy artists who should get a real job. Alas, this is a pet fund for liberals, and if this miniscule bump gets some liberal politicians on board, so be it. That is how politics work, if I am not mistaken.

(I do wish it was privately funded, like a charity, instead of by taxpayer funded. Same goes for NPR.)

NCLB Now this one is another tricky issue. How can we have accountability as well as guidelines on a federal level? When NCLB was passed, the major issue was accountability for the teachers and administrators, and on up. However, the few "less than enthusiastic" teachers and administrators saw it as a way to diminish teaching fundamentals, and focus strictly on "passing the test". (I know: I've got 5 nephews and nieces in public schools, and I never hear them say that they've got homework! Just "test preparation".)

The cries of "disband public schools" would not work, simply due to the loss of jobs by all those involved with closing the public schools (this would roughly be 30,000 with the local/county school districts) along with having 175,000 kids not in school.(which is more than just "baby-sitting/indoctrination centers" at most schools)

Where would those employees and students go?

Since this isn't a viable solution, how would you impliment change for such a beheamouth of an issue? How would you counteract the NEA?(The Teacher's Union)

Finally, as much as I would like to see certain things defunded, there are also congress members who are on the lobbyist's short list to make sure they stay funded, and stay in power.

How would you change these things? And how long would it take to change them?

[Maigrey]

Well, he is spending like a Kennedy, but I am not going to place all the blame on Bush, since it is congress that crafts the spending bills. Congress' puts the pork bills in the spending plan, and then expects the President to pass it (since he hasn't veto'd anything yet.)

(I wish he would line-item veto some things, but I don't make those decisions...)

[DrDeb]

"Prepare for the 12 Pack of Perpetual Pouting Pitchforkers to slither in here and solicit the Constitution Party as an alternative"


"12-Pack of Perpetual Pouting Pitchforkers" -- what a PITCH PERFECT descriptor!!

AND YES, PRESIDENT BUSH IS RIGHT -- most of us are smart enough to understand his strategy; the remainder understand but have other agendas!

[sauropod]

Thanks for your well thought out reply.

You asked how I would change things. Here's how:

Farm Bill: Abolish it or cut it waaaaaaay back. Most of the $$ went to corporate farms, not the prototypical family farm.

NEA: Defund it entirely.

NCLB: Abolish it and the Education Department in one swell foop. I am a firm believer in the separation of school and State. Public schools used to be "good." Why is that? Because that period of time was before the establishment of the Dept. of Ed. and the culture wars. The public schools used to be funded entirely from local districts $$. There used to be a lot more direct accountability than there is now.

Pills for Grandma. Should be cut off or at least means tested. LITTLE KNOWN FACT: something like 60 percent of the wealth of this country is in the hands of retired people. Why they think they are "owed" and have the right to saddle my generation and my children's generation with massive debt as a result of the wealth redistribution scheme (which this is) is beyond me.

[sauropod]

He has a virginal veto pen. ;-).

[Agamemnon]

Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy...and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven....

And clearly these dimbulbs fail to realize that in our Constitutional form of government no President can spend ANY money whatsoever. A President can impound funds temporarilly, but no President can possibly do that as standard policy and practice, and govern anything else effectively. Andrew Jackson's methods come to mind. These fellows do their position a major disservice to write so carelessly.

Even Stephan Moore of Cato knows better than to spout this kind of idiocy.

[KC_for_Freedom]

The effect of tarrifs is still the same. Recall that in California the left/environmental groups tried to stem the growth in the state by restricting the power companies plans to build power plants for future growth. The result was that power prices shot through the roof but the greens held their own. Next came power blackouts. The government should be extremely careful when they tamper with the forces of economics.

Now tarrifs are tampering. If we were able to hurt oil suppliers (OPEC) by raising tarrifs, making oil more expensive for ourselves, and therefore reducing our oil use as people moved to other technologies to move goods and people... (What are those other technologies? One can only do so much with telephones and video conferences.) As I said, if we could hurt the Saudis with this approach it might be worth trying. But the higher prices in the US would hurt the poorest first and would lead to the political take over of the party not in power.

Going to war with Saudi Arabia would do the same thing, put hundreds of thousands of Americans out or work because the cost of oil would go up. While fighting the war, the party in power would be attacked by the other party. (You see right now we are only interested in holding the power of the government, not united for the country.)

Far better to gradually develop enough other sources of energy, (nuclear generated electricity for example) and other providers of oil, (Iraq and Russia come to mind). Then the power that SA holds over us will weaken and we can demand an end to the teaching of hatred for the non-islamic population of the world.

This has been a more in-depth discussion of why raising the cost of oil via tariffs is a bad idea, either gradually, or rapidly.

[inquest]

But the higher prices in the US would hurt the poorest first and would lead to the political take over of the party not in power.

A gradual increase would result in few dislocations at first, and give the signal to entrepreneurs that now is the time to start investing in new oil exploration, and ultimately, new energy sources or new ways of using energy.

You also mentioned other suppliers of oil besides Saudi Arabia. By all means. A tariff doesn't necessarily have to apply to every importer.

[inquest]

The new spending has been at the President's behest. He submits a budget, and Congress votes on it. And the budgets he's been submitting have contained these massive increases, and he's quite proud of it. He most certainly shares much of the blame.

[kitkat]

*** LITTLE KNOWN FACT: something like 60 percent of the wealth of this country is in the hands of retired people.***

Tht does NOT mean that 60 percent of the retired people are wealthy.

It merely means, if it is accurate, that a small percentage of retired people were VERY wealthy.

That leaves the rest of the retirees. Do you realize that if someone retired just ten years ago, he may have been lucky to have been earning $400 a week, or a total of $20,800 a year. What do you suppose his retirement pay is today? IF he (or she) was fortunate enough to be allowed to stay in a job until retirement age.

Add in the fact that most retirees do NOT receive medical insurance. Did you know that, even if a retiree can afford to pay his/her own medical insurance, it is NOT possible to get prescription insurance unless one is employed?

Obviously, there are exceptions to the above. But they ARE exceptions.

Now tell me, which system works best for the taxpayer?

1. Help out with the prescription payments.
2. Drain any remaining savings the retiree has and then place them on Welfare.

Do you know how much more it would cost to maintain people on Welfare than to let them pay the rest of their own bills and get help with the prescription bills?

Putting people on Welfare so that the govt. can spend the dollars is what Clinton wanted when he said in Buffalo, NY (circa 1995 if I recall correctly) that the govt. knows better than the people how to spend the people's money. He was wrong, of course. It costs the taxpayers far more to spend the taxpayers' dollars (some estimates are 73 cents on the dollar goes to govt. agencies) than to let the people spend it themselves.

[texasflower]

I'll stop calling people bushbots when they stop acting like the same.

Lucky for you, most of us are far to polite to call you what you act like.

Your tone with everyone has been sarcastic and argumenative. You say you are interested in a rational debate. I don't see it.

You truly seem to be interested in a battle nothing more.

I am a very strong supporter of President Bush. You would label me as a Bushbot, I suppose.

I support the President because even if I don't agree, I know he is doing the best he can.

No President can be everything to everyone, but his heart listens to God.

That is more than good enough for me.

Because I haven't forgotten the way he was able to lead this country during the numbing, horrifying days of the 911 crisis.

God was most definately with him then. He is with him now.

[texasflower]

government spending like a drunken sailor, no tort reform in site and we are on our way to socialist health care.

The President HAS mentioned tort reform as one of his goals.

He has not said one thing that would indicate we were headed towards socialized medicine. In fact he has spoken against it.

Anyone who pays attention to his formal speeches and the more informal day to day stuff would know that.

The democrats would be the ones to take us to socialized medicine given half a chance.

Would they tackle tort reform?

You know the answer to that already don't you?

My vote will go to President George W. Bush.

[texasflower]

He may not be ready to launch into campaign rhetoric right now. This campaign will be highly organized.

When the time is right, the reelection team will be launching what I believe will be a dazzling campaign.

Having quotes that could be twisted around doesn't seem very smart to me.

You may say that the conservatives are part of his base. Reading the trash being spewed by the so called conservatives on this very site, shows that many would not hesitate to start trouble by misquoting.

The way you have attempted to twist the remarks of others on this thread proves how damaging people like you can be.

I much prefer the maturity and restraint that the Bush administration is able to exhibit. There will not be any of the "say one thing and then have to *clarify* it the next day".

President Bush deserves a second term and I will be helping to make sure he gets it.

[texasflower]

I have read David Frum's book, The Right Man. It is a wonderful book.

It does show very clearly what of man our President is.

Everyone should read it.