WHY RUSH IS DISGRUNTLED (Bush is advancing the Democrats most liberal agenda )

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 5/13/2002 | rushlimbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

WHY RUSH IS DISGRUNTLED

On Monday's show, the Doctor of Democracy made a sad diagnosis: "If the Reagan Revolution is not dead, then it's dying." If there was a model that the Bush administration used in establishing itself, it was the Reagan presidency. But now Bush is advancing the Democrats' most liberal agenda items - something particularly frustrating at a time when Bush's popularity would make it easy for him to recruit new conservatives.

Many of you have been critical of Rush's reactions to Bush's actions on spending over the recent months, and we took more calls of this sort on Monday - people who'd convinced themselves that the farm bill made sense or that Bush had some grand strategery at play. Now, Rush could throw his beliefs out the window for a day or two and say things that you might want to hear - like when he endorsed Clinton back in 1992 - but that's not what he does.

Rush can only give you his honest reaction, even when he doesn't like those reactions. That's honesty, folks, and it goes to disprove a key criticism many of the nation's liberals have made of Rush over the years. They've said that Rush is a party hack, and that he'd support the Republican Party no matter what they did. They charged that the EIB Network was simply a tool, that we were in daily contact with the powers that be to get marching orders. Well, that has pretty much been dispelled here: Rush is disgruntled.

[zoyd]

190 Billion over 10 years is 19 billion per year, That's a little less then we are spending now

Clinton managed less than $ 8 billion a year for four of HIS years... why can't Dubya match that?

You're quite the revisionist.

[MJY1288]

The "Toga Party" might get more than 2% of the vote

[MJY1288]

Vote for his wife in 2004 and you should be happy

[RAT Patrol]

. I'm totally baffled by people that exhibit barely controlled hatred for those that criticize Bush.

When I get into these combat conversations with Bush zealots, I like to remind them that Bush courted my vote with conservative talk. Having obtained it, am I worthless to him now? (until 2004, I guess)

I could not agree with you more!

[Texaggie79]

True..................True

[truthkeeper]

As someone who (strongly) supported Bush from way back when, your post said it all for me too. His incessant, relentless pandering to minority factions has really gotten on my last nerve lately. Frankly, if I never hear the word "compassionate" again it will be too soon.

And yes, I'll vote for him in 2004, but believe me, this time I'll be holding my nose. As for Rush, he's still the greatest in my book.

[terilyn]

Yes, but if you average his eight years it comes to 13.6 billion per year. And it has dramatically increased starting in 1998. Soon after the Freedom to Farm Act passed the emergency spending started and managed to double and almost triple the previous spending prior to the 1996 bill.

[zoyd]

By custom, Congress decides baseline farm subsidies every five to seven years during consideration of "the farm bill." The 1996 farm bill expires this year. The House, which passed its renewal version in October 2001, wants to legislate a ten-year package. Currently, Senate Democrats are trying to muscle their version through the Senate floor and have included a five-year provision in it.
Both the House and Senate, however, want to lavish $17 billion a year of taxpayer subsidies on farmers. This represents a $10 billion annual increase from the $7 billion levels that prevailed during the mid 1990s and an incredible 70% increase from the Congressional Budget Office baseline projection of $10 billion a year if the old farm bill were simply extended.

From National Review online.

[RAT Patrol]

Think what you will of Rush. I used to watch him on TV but I don't listen to the radio much. I do read a fair amount of his stuff on the Net. I think he is right on target AND MORE IMPORTANT TO ME he is a man of conservative principles.

Bush has been a big disappointment to me. He has done some good things and absolutely he is better than the liberal alternative --- but more and more not by much. I follow no man. I care about the issues. He has not done much for me lately. He has lied to me. I feel swindled to be frank with you. I'll still support him if I have to but he is not the man I thought he was. Either that or he is too weak to matter. It might be the later, but I know him now to be a liar and that really bothers me.

[ned]

Well Rush won't support the Republican Party if they disagree with Bibi.

Don't kid yourself. Rush will support the Republican party. He has no choice.

[thucydides]

Bush is President of all the people, and it is a sad fact that most of them have no real problem with bloated government or high taxes (as long as they think someone else is paying more than they are). He has to carefully pick his issues, just as Reagan did. Reagan lost ground on government spending, but he did get extremely high tax rates down, he gave the economy an enormous boost, and he ended the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union without a shot being fired. Bush is out to make our lives safer, and to repair some of the enormous damage to national security done during the Clinton years. Meanwhile, he is going along with a lot of nauseating stuff because he really has no choice. If he gets a better Congress in the Fall, he will improve.

[MJY1288]

I guess they want to ignore the farmers, ignore our infrastructure, ignore our terible education system, ignore our the corruption in our election system, Hell stop paying taxes all together, and vote Libertarian, we might look like Cuba in 4 years but at least POT will be legal

[zoyd]

I think I favor far less taxation than YOU do. I certainly wouldn't be happy with a Democrat in office. But with Dubya, I get a Republican who doles out money like a Democrat, and raises tariffs like someone who has never taken a basic Economics class. Thanks for the advice, tho.

[seanc623]

Clever, but I suggest you ask ex-Senator Slade Gorton of Washington about how much difference my party has made to Republicans who go back on their word (especially the 2nd Amendment). New Senator Maria Cantwell defeated him by a lot less than the 2% our "insignificant" candidate captured. While you're at it you can ask Senator Jon Ensign of Nevada why he didn't win his election in '98 instead of 2000 (again, a Libertarian received many more votes than the difference between Ensign and the Democrat). Finally there's the Republican operative who's asked us not to run a majority of candidates for the House of Representatives this year so the GOP can hold their slim majority. Not bad for a party that can't make a difference.

[zoyd]

I guess they want to ignore the farmers, ignore our infrastructure, ignore our terible education system, ignore our the corruption in our election system, Hell stop paying taxes all together, and vote Libertarian, we might look like Cuba in 4 years but at least POT will be legal

So you're a Conservative who favors increases in Farm spending, Education spending, revamping the election system according to a Democrat agenda, and raise taxes. Congrats. You're the Conservative of the Future.

And if you think Cuba represents ANYTHING libertarian, then I'd suggest you understand what the LP is about before making inane statements like that.

[terilyn]

I'm not arguing what the baseline is. I'm simply saying that it's obvious they're going to spend the money anyway as they have since 1998. The difference is that in 1998 - 2001 it was done IMHO without fanfare. You and I and the rest of the American taxpayers paid for it without seeing how much it was in black and white. The only advantage here is that for the first time in four years they're at least telling us they're going to do it. Doesn't make it great, but it does make it a little easier to take, (at least for me). I prefer honesty and transparency when it comes to government spending.

[TN Republican]

This farm bill is like expanding welfare. Newt's Republicans managed to decrease this kind of spending in 1996. This bill raises it back to historical levels and then adds some more pork in for good measure.

Another commonality between price subsidies and subsidies to the poor is that they both set a lower price limit for a commodity such as sugar, mohair, or labor. They cost us money in taxes paid to the federal government (so some farmers won't grow, or so some people won't work), and in higher prices for the affected commodity (sugar and all of its derivatives will cost more due to price supports, just as unskilled labor will cost more due to minimum wage laws).

[Texaggie79]

Ron Paul will make more difference in one day on the Hill than any other Libertarian that has made local office.

[Rowdee]

Before you get all jacked up about the ABA.......you do realize that the Democratic controlled Senate is having the ABA give them vetting reports via the Judiciary committee?

Also, as it regards Ashcroft/Olson and the RKBA....Ashcroft may have said the best thing next to what the Founders felt, and Olson may have written this into his argument as it regards the case before the USSC.....however, Olson, also asked the court that this not be argued at this time........so, when is a good time to argue this argument? Perhaps when there is a new administration who is anti 2nd amendment?

[zoyd]

I prefer honesty and transparency when it comes to government spending.

Point well taken, but I don't understand why we don't revert at the least to mid-90s levels.