BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES

news/op/ed ^ | 3/28/2002 | Richard Reeves

[TLBSHOW]

BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES

WASHINGTON --

It looks as if President Bush 's honeymoon is over. He's fine with the American people -- his personal approval rating is still in the 80 percent range -- but his own natives, Republican movement conservatives, are already restless.

Like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan before him, Bush is already being branded as an appeaser of liberals and a sellout on a range of issues dear to the right-side hearts of many of his party's faithful. These are, it must be mentioned, impossible people who, more often than not, prefer to lose on principle than win through compromise.

They hate Washington and all it stands for, which is compromise and government of all the people. Unfortunately for them, presidents, even their own, have to work in this town -- and that means compromising, however reluctantly, with the opposition in Congress and the vast bureaucracies of governance and liberal constituencies.

Like baseball, it happens every spring. This year, even with overwhelming conservative (and liberal, too) support of the president in our officially undeclared war on terrorism, there are the right's gripes of the moment:

The president from Texas, lusting for Hispanic votes in his own state and in California, is too friendly with Mexico, pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants from south of the Rio Grande and San Diego.

He has sold out free-traders by imposing old-fashioned tariffs on the import of foreign steel -- or he is just chasing Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

He may have been holding his nose when he did it, but he signed the campaign-finance reform bill pushed by Democratic senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and apostate Republican senator John McCain of Arizona.

As part of the war effort, he is advocating a 50 percent increase in the United States' minuscule foreign aid program. This one rebukes conservatives who were determined to set in stone the idea that there is no connection between poverty in the poor regions of the world and hatred and terrorism directed at the richest of nations, the United States.

He is pushing Israel to compromise in its endless war against the Palestinians in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.

He is pushing education policy and legislation that would increase federal influence in states, counties and towns across the country -- a big no-no to movement conservatives.

He is not pushing tax cuts the way he did during the campaign, partly because war and educational reform cost huge amounts of taxpayer revenues. Most of this was bound to happen, and any ideological president, Republican or Democrat, is eventually forced to betray campaign promises and core constituencies. The only difference this time is that because of continuing public support for military action (and its high costs), Bush is beginning to take more flak from his own kind than from the loyal opposition.

In the conservatives' favorite newspaper, The Washington Times, political columnist Donald Lambro began a news analysis last week by saying: "President Bush's about-face on trade tariffs, stricter campaign-finance regulations and other deviations from Republican doctrine is beginning to anger his conservative foot soldiers but does not seem to be cutting into his overall popularity -- yet."

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, puts it this way: "We're very disappointed about these new tariffs on steel and lumber. That's two new tax hikes on the American people. ... There's a concern among our members that in his effort to build and keep this coalition for the war, which is certainly needed, he's given Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the forces of big government a free pass."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, added: "He's been getting a pass from us until now, but the amnesty bill is what tipped it over for us. I agree with Sen. Robert Byrd (a Democrat). This is 'sheer lunacy.' ... A lot of people thought Bush's education bill was terrible. But we didn't rant and rave about it because we wanted to support him on the war. That's changed. The amnesty bill is the hot issue out here. It's out of sync with what grassroots Americans want."

Finally, Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, said: "The danger for us is that Bush may begin to take the conservatives for granted, and you are seeing some signs of that happening with the steel tariff decision, foreign aid and other spending increases in the budget."

So it goes. There is nothing new about this. In the 1970s, William F. Buckley and other movement conservative leaders publicly "suspended" their support of President Richard Nixon because of what they considered his liberal moves toward welfare reform, tariffs and other issues considered part of the liberal domestic agenda -- to say nothing of his reaching out to communist China.

But in the end, Nixon kept them in line by pushing the war in Vietnam beyond reasonable limits. George Bush could accomplish the same political goal of uniting conservative support by continuing to push the war on terrorism into far nooks and crannies of the whole world.

[Eagle Eye]

Good point, but I'm not sure that the Big Name Conservatives that are uneasy with Bush's moves are anywhere near the extremes.

CFR should, and probably does alarm the informed electorate (those pesky extremists). Signing that bill was worse than clinton lying under oath.

[LS]

You can "consider" Jupiter to be Mars, but it ain't.

Virtually EVERY conservative policy analyst, such as Charles Murray and Walter Williams, have agreed that by far the worst aspect of welfare was AFDC. Now, whether or not you think foodstamps are wrong, well . . . . Think what you want, but if you think that any candidate is going to run on ending all foodstamps, you're delusional.

I can't think of any genuine politicians---maybe Ron Paul---who would support this. Certainly any Christian politicians would have trouble denying government aid to the truly needy. Even Reagan advocated a "safety net."

[ModernDayCato]

Not really. I have a couple of pieces of California stuff, like an autographed business card from when he was governor, and a few other pieces.

Jeez...can't understand why he would try to help Brady -- The guy only got most of his head blown off when they were aiming for Reagan.

I honestly don't have any problem with compromise, but the reason why a comparison of Bush (either one) to Reagan is completely hollow is that Reagan had a sanctity for this country and its principles, and believed in this country and its people above all else.

I've always believed that the GOP could beat the Dems on principle. Too bad it's never been tried.

I do thank all of you Bush Koolaid drinkers for helping me to understand that I don't belong with the Republican party.

[LS]

Which, I suppose, is why the president has an 80% approval rating and a 96% approval among Republicans. Yep. Really self-destructing there. (You wish.)

[LS]

Do you even read the news? Apparently not, or you would have seen that Bush has quietly (and that's the key word) turned around MANY of the EOs issued by Clinton, including another one this week.

[TLBSHOW]

It is all about the election my friend that has the rats in full mode

The bill signing that never was

In just what contempt President Bush holds the successful bipartisan efforts to stem the flood of unlimited, uncontrolled campaign money that has reduced the U.S. political system to the status of an Oriental bazaar was made abundantly clear when he signed the bill. There was no ceremony, including no cameras, which excluded from the White House the chief Republican sponsor, Arizona Senator John McCain. Congressional leaders learned of the signing only after the fact. The president said petulantly that he was not happy with the legislation, which bans the unlimited "soft money" donations from corporations and individuals.

The signing ceremony

preceded by a few hours a two-day trip to South Carolina, Georgia and Texas to raise some $4 million for Republican candidates

and two lawsuits filed in federal court challenging the just-signed legislation -- one by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and the other by the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Bush's unblushing action in dismissing the years-long efforts to regulate campaign donations and his immediate trip to the South underscored his apparent intention to observe the will of the people expressed in Congress without closing ranks behind the senators and members of Congress who had been successful making the long-held dream a reality. But most members of the House and Senate will not be perturbed by such cavalier behavior;

their doors will be knocked on and their phones ringing the next time he needs their votes on something else.

Voters are another matter. When they see cleaner elections of unbought politicians becoming a reality, they will remember who has the better interests the nation at heart. Republicans are in charge of the House by only handful of votes now after years of successively smaller majorities and the Senate is in Democratic hands. And Mr. Bush's leadership, even on his conduct of anti-terrorist campaign, is coming into question, while GOP leaders' arguments that even to question is to help al-Qaida are more and more meeting a doubting electorate.

The prospects for increased Democratic and independent voter skepticism are growing brighter,

and Mr. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are being called to account for their conduct of the campaign -- an accounting that is badly needed. It is the duty of the political opposition to question, as Senator Robert Byrd, the crusty constitutionalist from West Virginia, has pointed out and even more the duty of the people's leaders to answer, just as the Congress finally answered the people's demands for a more responsive, less corrupt way of conducting electoral politics.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/S-ASP-Bin/Ref/Banner.asp?puid=2183

[thepitts]

You are on my list of those that I new would show up first here. Truth hurts and the rats are playing the conservatives for fools.

Seems to me the rats are playing bush for a fool, and doing a great job of it.

[Texasforever]

You certainly know all the welfare programs don't you?

[LS]

Don't post those success stories. Some people here think that foodstamps should be denied the poorest Americans, and are unconcerned with real, working programs. Give them ideology, not results!

[Eagle Eye]

"Impossible" would be an improvement over what I've been called as well.

I thnk it was Shelby Foote that said that the root cause of the War between the States was that we lost our genius for compromise. I understand what he meant, but there are times where compromise is just another word for BOHICA.

Where would so many of the Bush apologists be 250 years ago? We already are pleased to accept tenfold more than our forefathers shed blood to be free from.

[ModernDayCato]

Where would so many of the Bush apologists be 250 years ago?

Dead, or in red uniforms, or both.

[VRWC_minion]

Some changes in the 86 act-Just a sampling

Eliminated 60% capital gains deduction

Eliminated income avergaing

Eliminated two-earner deduction (thereby increasing the marriage tax)

eliminated 200 joint return dividend exclusion

made unemployment benefits taxable

Eliminated charity deductions for nonitemizers

Eliminated deduction for sales tax paid

Eliminated deduction for medical deduction under 7.5% of adjusted gross income

Eliminated deduction for interest on everything but home mortgages.

Eliminated full deduction of meals and entertainment to 80%

Eliminated the home office deduction for most individuals.

Increased amount of Alt min tax for many

Eliminated very fast write of business propery.

Eliminated the 10% investment credit

Gutted real estate investments deductions by creating passive loss rules

[LS]

Ok, I see what you are doing. Look, it's real simple. In 1982, Reagan proposed to cut the top rate from 48% to 25%. In 1986, it was raised, raised, get it? to 28%. That is an increase. By discussing the rate of CHANGE in the tax RATE, you are almost playing the old Democrats "a-smaller-increase-than-what-we-wanted-is-a-'cut'-game."

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. After the FIRST Reagan cuts, the top rate was 25%---forget how many brackets or what---and after 1986 it was 28. That is an increase, by anyone's definition.

[cva66snipe]

Which, I suppose, is why the president has an 80% approval rating and a 96% approval among Republicans. Yep. Really self-destructing there. (You wish.)

Think hard on this one. If Bush has a 80% plus approval rating among the general population what does that actually mean? Better yet is not the general population a make up of Liberals as well? Let me get this straight. People are happy because a majority of the liberals are as well happy? Better audit the storekeepers books and see who's getting the raw end of the deal here. Reagan despite his compromises did not enjoy this type of hype. That should send out danger signals to those with mind to realize it. Bush is far left of Ronnie it seems to me.

[ModernDayCato]

Then again, if you saw The Patriot they would be all of the people in the big town meeting whining that King George wasn't such a bad guy.

[Texasforever]

That's TANF/AFDC. What about food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, CHIPS, WIC, free health care and the rest?

WELFARE-RELATED RANKINGS

How Texas’ welfare (cash assistance) program compares to that of other states:

 31^st in AFDC/TANF recipients as a percent of the total population (3.0 percent in fiscal 1997)

42^nd in state and local government welfare spending per capita ($536 in fiscal 1996)

46^th in welfare benefits as a percentage of poverty-level income (45 percent in fiscal 1997)

47^th in average monthly administrative costs per AFDC case ($24.22 per case in fiscal 1996)

48^th in typical monthly AFDC/TANF payment for a family of three ($156 in fiscal 1996)

 

NOTE: AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children; TANF = Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. In Texas, TANF replaced AFDC in fiscal 1997.

SOURCES: CQ’s State Fact

[FITZ]

This is also Bush's Texas (the part that's growing far faster than the other):

Much of the Border region is extremely poor. As of 1995, more than a quarter of the Border counties, or 11 of 43, fell into the poorest 1 percent of all counties in the U.S., with per-capita incomes of less than $10,840. The region contained three of the nation's five poorest counties: Maverick, Starr, and Zavala.4 Twenty-two of the 43 counties, more than half, ranked in the poorest 10 percent of all counties with per-capita personal income of less than $13,914. At the other end of the scale, the Border region did not have a single county ranked in the top 10 percent of the nation's income distribution.

Also notable is the level of public as opposed to private sector economic activity in the region. Nearly one-quarter of the personal income of the Border region, 22.5 percent, came from transfer payments in 1995, compared to 16.8 percent for the nation and 15.2 percent for all of Texas. In addition, military and civilian governmental employees generated 26.4 percent of the personal income in the Border region the same year, compared to 23.5 percent for the U.S. and 20.9 percent for Texas. As a result, the private economy, including farms, generated only 51 percent of the personal income in the Border region, considerably behind the 59.7 percent accounted for by the private sector in the national economy and the 63.9 percent for Texas. If current trends hold true, then non-wage income, including transfer payments, is expected to surpass wage income in the Border region as the leading source of household income by 2020.

Despite these troubling numbers, it can be argued that the Border region is not unique in its poverty--even within the U.S. In this century, among the most recognized impoverished areas has been the sprawling Appalachia region, encompassing 399 counties in 13 states stretching from Mississippi to New York. In the late 1960s, in fact, the Appalachia region was by some measures more poverty-stricken than the Texas Border today. However, the Texas Border region has been "catching up," and even surpassing, Appalachia in its poverty.

[TLBSHOW]

US to Back Out of World Court Plan Envoy: Bush team may 'unsign' treaty

by Elizabeth A. Neuffer

UNITED NATIONS - The Bush administration will not take part in the International Criminal Court scheduled to be ratified next month and is considering removing its signature from the treaty that created it, a top war crimes envoy said yesterday.

''The US is not and will not be part of the ICC,'' said Pierre Prosper, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes issues, told reporters in New York.

snip

The Clinton administration, after months of opposition, signed the treaty just minutes before a Dec. 31, 2000, deadline

snip

Palitha Kohona, head of the UN treaty section, said he knew of ''no precedent'' for a country removing its signature.

rats source and they are not happy

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0329-01.htm

[ModernDayCato]

That would be excellent.

[jwalsh07]

It means that the wings of politics are never happy.