Right or Wrong, Bush is a True Big-Picture Guy

Op/Ed My Yahoo ^ | 1/11/03 | Richard Reeves

[ohioWfan]

By Richard Reeves

WASHINGTON -- When he was still a governor in 1999, George W. Bush came to Los Angeles to speak to a polite but skeptical crowd of movie executives. Suspicions that the man from Texas was dim and uncertain seemed confirmed when he could not remember the name of a Californian he said he had worked with closely.

Bush snapped the tension with a crack: "Hey, I'm a big-picture guy."

Who knew he wasn't kidding? I have told that story before, but it seems appropriate right now. This president has knocked the wind out of Washington with his ambitions to change the rules of the world and the tax code of the United States. "Big" and "bold" are the words of the day, as in this headline over a Washington Post analysis: "Bush Goes With the Bold Stroke."

"Call it boldness, audacity or even chutzpah ..." begins the piece by Dana Milbank, which continues, "President Bush twice stunned the capital with proposals far beyond what was considered workable."

The heavy breathing began last Tuesday, when the president called for tax cuts that doubled even what many of the most anti-government Republicans expected -- and they were cuts that proudly favored the so-called "investing class." Rich people, families with incomes above $375,000 a year, the top 1 percent of earners, would get more than 30 percent of the new tax breaks.

Then a few hours later, the president followed with another right cross to the town's solar plexus. The conventional wisdom was that after the racial flap over Sen. Trent Lott's praise of segregationists past, Bush would look for more moderate conservatives to nominate for federal judgeships in the South. Wrong again! Bush once again nominated federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering to fill an appeals court vacancy. Pickering, a Lott protege from Mississippi, was rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) because of his record on racial matters. That was when Democrats controlled the Senate. Now Republicans are in control, so Bush stuck it to the new minority.

In case the Democrats did not get the message, he also renominated Texas Supreme Court Justice Patricia Owens for the same appeals court. She had been rejected in committee because Democrats believed she was determined to push a personal anti-abortion agenda on the bench.

Our president is a very tough guy, an in-your-face politician far tougher than people on both sides thought. "In for a penny, in for a pound," was the comment by one Republican in Congress. The idea, which surprised most people around here, was that if Bush is going to lose on some of his programs, particularly tax cuts, why not lose big?

Many in his own party, some of them uncomfortable with this boldness -- thinking it irresponsible -- believe that the president is haunted by his father's easygoing reputation. The conventional wisdom is that George H.W. Bush lost re-election in 1992 because he did not cash in the political capital (his own high standing in polls) after the first Gulf War (news - web sites) against Iraq. The political cliche on that one is, "Not like father, like son."

All of this happened, of course, while the president was threatening war in a couple of venues, old and new, and as the federal budget (and the budgets of state and local governments) were plunging once more into deficit because of relatively lower tax revenues. We've been there, done that, haven't we? The fact is that younger Bush is not like his father. He is like his father's old boss, Ronald Reagan (news - web sites). Borrow and borrow, spend and spend -- and ignore criticism.

He is, right or wrong -- and he certainly is convinced he's right -- a true big-picture guy. He may be riding for a fall, but he is trying to change the world and the country. Bush, right now, is moving to remake the world in an American image -- institutionalizing an American empire -- and remake the country in a conservative image with government power reduced by cutting its funding. And if people don't like it, they can go to court and appeal to the judges he picked.

[ohioWfan]

Yeah......but at least he'll make the thread longer! LOL!

[ohioWfan]

For the second time! I liked it better today than I did the first time!

[Pippin]

(((((MEEKIE))))))!

[MJY1288]

I just read the trolls own words on his FR homepage, and it could have been written by Tom Daschle

[ohioWfan]

It also contains very large unfunded mandates

Yeah, some really stupid mandates like making sure that kids learn to read and do math.....even poor black kids.

Now that's bad for America, isn't it?

[Karsus]

I support most of his judicial nominees.
The GOP controls both houses of congress and the white house and this is the best tax reform we could do? I expected a lot more.

What evil enemy is that?
Al-quida (much has been done but much more needs to be done)? Iraq? (agree with what is being done)
North Korea (called by the GWB 'not a crisis')?

Where are the GOP statements againts abortion? Where is the movement to ban all forms of abortion?

[Pippin]

ACH!

Second time?

YIPES!! I gotta carch up with you. I need to make Another trip to the theater.

[CyberAnt]

Dana Milbank is a liberal hack! This article is a total surprise from her usual hackjob pieces.

[Paul_B]

Thoughtful article. And even sweeter coming from the guy who condemned the Clinton Admin. as the most politicized White House in history.

[azGOPgal]

Howdy OhioWfan!

See, the thing about the President is, that while the Democrats are out criticizing and underestimating him, he is out getting things done. He has stayed focused on the task at hand. I thinkg the President is doing an awesome job, and I might not read as much or watch as many news type stuff that everybody else does, but with my general knowledge I think that President Bush is off to a wonderful start this year.

[ohioWfan]

No problem, friend! Thanks for coming......and thanks for your MEGA ping! :o)

[Pippin]

Hi MJY!

[RightWhale]

why did we have to pass laws after 9/11 that remove freedoms?

Would you care to favor FR with a short list of such lost freedoms? Keep it to the most egregious if you prefer.

[MJY1288]

Hello!

[Karsus]

I got this off your FR home page. Does it mean that you stink up the place also?

A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695209/posts

"Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:

• How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?

• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?

• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?

• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?

• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?

• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?

• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?

• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?

• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?

• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?

• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?

• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?"

[MeekOneGOP]

Ain't this a great article?...

[Tennessean4Bush]

But ReAgan made MAJOR changes to the tax code. Why hasn't GWB done anything MAJOR to the tax code?

What game have you been watching?

• He just proposed eliminating the tax on dividends. This is a major reform not just for its long term growth potential but also for its reform of Wall Street. It puts great structural pressure on firms to have sound balance sheets.
• He proposed dropping marginal tax rates significantly. Passed it in Spring 2001, and is now proposing implementing them retroactively to January 2003.
• He proposed accelerating the per child tax credit to 1000 per child. This is a huge deal to strengthen the tax code to help families.
• He proposed eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
• He proposed private investment accounts for 3-4 of the 15% FICA taxes.

Just because he did not propose what you wanted him to does not mean it was not major and it does not mean it is bad. This is a great proposal.

All these purists on this board that say it is all meaningless unless you remove the income tax altogether and replace it with a sales tax or implement a flat tax are too anxious and are completely unrealistic. The only way that will happen is if there is a disaster or Bush wins reelection in 2004 by 75%-25% while campaigning on the issue as a centerpiece and even then it would be a knock-down drag out struggle.

You have to begin to look at how we got in the mess we are in called the tax code. It did not happen overnight, it happened incrementally over many years. The demonRATs were content to chip away over many years. The pubs need to keep winning elections and if they string 3-4 together, they will get it eventually.

[habs4ever]

I spent the past two days going over the plan, and its MAJOR.The boldest package since Reagan's cut in '81.It's a quasi cap gains tax cut in the excludable distribution account coupled with dividend double taxation elimination and the making permanent of the lower bracket rates.It's much more supply side oriented that at first blush and it does not favour debt over equity.The way this has been done is a masterstroke, both by turning the cap gains tax on its head and making this the most pro-shareholder friendly growth package in 20 yrs.

My guess is that official Washington has been blindsided by the nuance in the approach to getting traditional Republican goals of lower tax rates for all groups, including the corporate sector, and eliminating the negative stereotypes by not actually mentioning "capital gains".Superb tactics have been used.

[MJY1288]

Get a grip stinky , You didn't get that off my home page, That's a link to an article, Sherlock

[RightWhale]

It also contains very large unfunded mandates.

Nobody likes unfunded mandates. Did you have any specific ones in mind?