Bush has gotten two tax cuts through, in 2 1/2 years. Are they big enough ? No, but it's a start and far different from what Clinton did.
I suggest that you read Malkin's latest article concerning the Patriot Act. She explains/refutes your paranoia, far better than I could , or wish to waste my time on you doing.
The CFR destroyed the Dem's soft money programs. You don't understand this any more than you " get " the Patriot Act.
You are the one calling anyone not as fanatical as you, a " closet Liberal "; yet, the LP shares many more positions with the Dems and especially the GREENIES, than they have ever, with the GOP. That's " Conservative " ? When pigs sprout wings and fly , it is.
Truth be told, you are not only a poltical naif, but can't refute those you oppose with any substancial, factual matterial.
No, she didn't. She adopted and favorably reported the glowing and glittery praise of the act's chief writer itself as if that praise were a dispassionate discussion of the act. In that sense, Malkin's article was misleading and one-sided. Of course the author of the act thinks the act is the best thing since sliced bread (just as the mother who gives birth to a child sees no blemishes and flaws in her child). This bias must be kept in mind when considering whether the praise is warranted.
The Patriot Act was a knee-jerk response to 9/11, rushed through Congress with almost no discussion or understanding of its terms by the legislators who voted for it. Some obscure law professor wrote most of it and got it rubber-stamped. The legislative deliberative process (which admittedly is often lacking in Wash DC) was completely nonexistent in the case of the USA PATRIOT Act.
What freedoms were lost? For US citizens, none that I can see. What freedoms were burdened or compromised? I'll point out a few.
First, the FBI, CIA and other agencies now have the power to secretly surveil your reading and Internet surfing habits (to include rummaging around on your computer hard drive) without ever telling you even after-the-fact and without first seeking permission from a judge. When they do seek permission from a judge, the judge is required to accept their averments at face-value that they have good reason to do what they are doing. Personally, I'm not the least bit worried that my personal security will be compromised. I am confident they will concentrate on the bad guys and leave me alone. But the point is, there is no longer a line drawn that keeps them looking solely at the bad guys. I must rely on their promises to be careful and have faith that they will. In the long run I do not believe it is wise to rely on government's expressions of "trust me, I won't abuse this potentially devastating power I now have to push the limits of the 4th Amendment." I would be gravely worried if a Hillary Clinton administration were telling me that.
Another example of burdened freedom: the requirement that virtually ALL cash transactions of $10,000 or more in ANY field of endeavor must be reported to the federal government. Again, I am not the least bit worried about providing this information--but I do object to the increased costs of compliance this forces on businesses. Businesses must now hire someone to ensure--or assign an employee the additional task of ensuring--compliance with this law. Small costs? Maybe, maybe not. For businesses living close to the margin (especially in the hospitality and travel businesses, which have suffered disproportionately in the wake of 9/11) the additional costs could mean the difference between viability and bankruptcy. It's a thing good tax cuts have been provided; these will help offset the costs from many businesses.
And so on.
In the final analysis, I have seen nothing that persuades me the FBI, CIA, and INS could not have fought this domestic war on terror with existing powers, competently employed.
Bush also ballooned spending, and those bills are gonna come due someday. State and local Dems are always funding things though bond issues, because many people forget that those bonds/spending will have to be paid someday.
A small tax increase today isn't much help if a huge bill comes due several years down the road. Cutting taxes isn't enough unless he also cuts spending -- and much of his increased spending is domestic, not just "war on terror" stuff.