| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 05/29/2002 10:02:01 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Is George W. Bush becoming the president who just can't say no? Democrats like to paint him in dyed-in-the-wool conservative colors and portray him as even more of an ideological warrior than was Ronald Reagan.
Few would disagree that he is more conservative than was his father, but saying that leaves out a lot. In short, it lacks a recognition of President Bush's highly developed sense of pragmatism and his readiness to compromise —which is infuriating some conservative luminaries who argue his presidency so far is shaping up to be a disappointment when it comes to domestic policy.
Frustration was evident earlier in the year when the White House started backing moderate Republicans over conservatives in GOP primary races around the country. With spending on government programs set to increase by 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to some analyses, grumbling about Bush is mounting within the Republican Party's conservative wing.
Spending on annually funded programs increased about 9 percent in the last two years of the Clinton administration. In the first two years of the Bush administration it is scheduled to grow nearly 15 percent.
Administration officials say they'll control spending once the current terrorist emergency has passed. But conservative critics say the boost in federal spending under Bush isn't just connected with Sept. 11, nor has there been a White House effort to offset additional dollars for defense and national security with reductions elsewhere.
The irate conservatives point to the president's May signing of the most expensive farm-subsidy package in U.S. history, despite objections even by some Republicans who called it a "protectionist boondoggle." Conservative critics say the measures will make U.S. farmers dependent on federal subsidies and that it represents a reversal in the congressional effort since the mid-1990s to curb a trend toward farm price supports. "We seem to have done a U-turn," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) when the bill was passed.
The chorus of conservative disapproval is most high-pitched when it comes to the president's failure so far to veto any legislation that has come his way from Congress, including the recent farm legislation. From libertarians at the Cato Institute to conservatives at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, concern is growing at Bush's reluctance to use his veto powers to curb the free-spending ways of Congress.
Conservatives, including some within his administration, fear Bush fails to appreciate that Congress will be brought to heel only when the White House fires off a veto or two. "Since the fall his aides have kept telling us that they will veto this bill and veto that bill but, when push comes to shove, nothing happens," says a prominent conservative leader.
So far, after nearly 16 months in office, Bush has not exercised a single veto. That contrasts with Reagan, who used to enjoy taunting the then Democrat-controlled Congress by urging Capitol Hill to "make my day" and approve bills he didn't like. Reagan vetoed 70 bills during his first term. Even the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush was tougher than his son — he issued 44 vetoes.
The president's legislative-affairs director, Nick Calio, maintains that Bush often has been able to get his way just by calling attention to his veto power. He has cited a post-9/11 spending bill as an example of where Bush managed to secure some changes as a result of raising the specter of a veto.
But conservative critics are not persuaded. At a private strategy session in the winter, Bush tried to pre-empt complaints by assuring Republican senators that he wouldn't flinch from exercising his veto power. But he was careful not to provide any hostages to fortune by offering examples of what he would strike down.
One of the biggest conservative fears is that the president has bought into the notion that Sept. 11 prompted a sea change in the political outlook of ordinary Americans, causing them to be more willing to tolerate big government and increased government expenditures. Worse still, some argue, Bush is using the terrorism emergency to justify expenditures that have nothing to do with national security.
Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer recently bewailed Bush for justifying farm subsidies on defense grounds. "A national-security crisis provides countless opportunities to camouflage expansions of government power or spending as necessary for the common defense," Palmer cautioned in a Cato policy paper.
The Cato critic also cited the president's State of the Union address, in which Bush promised to increase the funding of police and fire departments, something previously considered to be the responsibility of local governments.
Bush supporters say the president simply is engaging in smart politics. Columnist Tony Blankley, who was the spokesman for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, argues that Bush and his political advisers have made the conscious decision not to get embroiled in a domestic-policy row with the Democrats this side of the congressional polls in November. The idea is to allow the White House to focus the election on national-security issues, which should benefit the GOP.
The downside, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that once the federal spending juggernaut starts picking up speed it can't easily be slowed.
Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.
email the author
Jeb Bush is running for re-election.
The President is playing pure politics here. It will help out his brother and his 2004 re-election bid. But by backing these Florida interests, Bush is compromising his position, that the US must develop more domestic energy resources. If I'm not mistaken, the President opened up new areas for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico last year.
The agreement does require Congressional approval though.
My remarks, about not understanding politics, wasn't meant for you. But you knew that, right?
Like I said: I'll get along just fine on here with just
about anyone. Especially if they treat me with respect,
and don't patronize, or lecture me about my political
views. I can understand and respect people who state
why they support someone, even if I can't agree with
them. I understand what you're writing, believe me. I
don't like being put down, and called a 'Bush-bot'
or something along that line, so I'm not going
to do that to you, ok?
Yeah, I joined on April 23, so what? Does that mean I have
any less right than you, to be on here, just because I'm a
so-called 'newbie'? Well so were you, once. Is that the way
to greet someone coming on here?
Far more Americans work in the manufacturing and construction sectors than do in the steel and lumber industries.
Baby Bushies policies are going to destroy the American manufacturing sector and trash the real estate market.
Bush Sr. needs to give his son an ass kicking he will never forget,
Yeah. RELAX! I wasn't calling you ANYTHING; I meant "you" in the broad sense of the word. Freepers in general. I didn't think that I needed to explain that in the post, but apparently I should have.
Now that we cleared that up, The point of post #s 14 and 15 were directed to those people who were attacking other posters who had the nerve to disagree with the president about something, not at everyone who supports Bush. (Re: post#8)
Ugh!
That sounds good!
It’s a fact that Congress never took ECON 101. They spend what they please regardless of the actual income. It’s called deficit spending. Only real cuts in programs result in less government (well beyond the standard Republican cuts in anticipated growth).
were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles . . . I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM.
You may believe that a rogue nation couldn’t get control of an ICBM, but it is not beyond consideration. We have to be prepared for just such a possibility. I a firm believer in overwhelming capability. While we have been busy mothballing and destroying our strategic nukes, Russia has modernized its strategic force. While the number of missiles is down, the actual number of warheads is less certain because their MIRV capability is much greater. But, the real threat lies East. The strategic threat from China will grow faster than we can get NMDS online. And the likelihood of China actually attacking the US is greater than Russia during the Cold War. Threats need to be countered before they materialize, but you already know that.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on your politics.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on the Constitution. EOs were never intended to replace the legislative branch. What could come back to haunt you, other than denying the executive a power that is stolen and unconstitutional?
Bush has stood up to environmentalists.
Yes, and I am happy he did so. But the monuments were a direct assault on the entire concept of property ownership. Sorry, but I believe that is worth fighting for.
Having principles, doesn't mean you should have a closed mind and compromise plays a big part in politics.
Yes, principles require a closed mind—at times. You have to choose your battles. Some things you can compromise and some you fight to your dying breath. Let’s remember compromise and capitulation are two different animals.
I want both an efficient and smaller government. Cutting waste, fraud and abuse would help to give us a smaller government.
We agree here. I may be a contentious curmudgeon, but I also know that this is a spat between brothers, not a civil war. I am not working against Bush. I truly respect and like him. He has pleasantly surprised me a couple of times and I expect him to do so again. My greatest prayer is that he will be able to reforge the SCOTUS into a constitutional court.
I think the seemingly conflicting poll results are correct. W has shown he can get people to like him even though they don’t agree with him. This is where I think he really resembles Reagan. While he doesn’t have the polish of Hollywood, he has a sincerity combined with real humility that disarms his enemies. He is genuine and he is honest and that is such an improvement, few can help but be heartened.
Signing into law acts that are patently unconstitutional -and knowing this before signing them - is NOT doing his "Constitutional duties."
What conservative bills are stalled?
So, IYHO, there's no room for principled disagreement over the issues?
That probably applies to the majority of all congresscritters. But lets give credit, where credit is due. There are many representatives who work very hard to reduce government spending, they just don't have the raw numbers and the politcal power to impliment a conservative agenda.
>>>You may believe that a rogue nation couldn’t get control of an ICBM, but it is not beyond consideration.
I didn't say that. I was responding to your remark, ... the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war". I don't agree with you and there is no factual evidence, that you can show to support such a contention. Being vigilant is one thing, being paranoid is something entirely different.
>>>And the likelihood of China actually attacking the US is greater than Russia during the Cold War.
Again, thats not true. May be at some future date this might be a reality, but right now, this is a complete faslehood.
>>>EOs were never intended to replace the legislative branch.
Agreed. But the fact is, the ability for any president to enact his political desires, through the existing EO process, is a political reality and that's what I was getting at. President Bush isn't going to rectify the moral mistakes and ethical lapses of former POTUS, Bill Clinton and he'd be seriously mistaken to undertake such a worthless effort.
>>>I may be a contentious curmudgeon...
That's obvious! =^)
Those unconstitutional parts should never have been in the law in the first place. (And Congress knew they were unconstitutional and did it any way.)
The system is supposed to be one of checks and balances. Congress is supposed to make laws that are constitutional. If by chance they pass a law that isn't consitutional, the President is supposed to veto that law. Only if both parties don't stop it, is the USSC supposed to step in and rule it unconstitutional.
Right now, we have a collusion of all parties involved to pass, accept, approve, and enforce laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. ALL of them took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and ALL of them have knowingly and deliberately broken that oath.
Passing the buck to the USSC is a cop out. If Congress and the President actually did their jobs correctly the first time, this country would be much better off.
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.