Posted on 01/24/2009 4:03:45 AM PST by Zakeet
Now that George W. Bush has finally left office, here's a challenge to a nation famous for its proud tradition of invention: Can somebody invent a machine capable of fully measuring the disaster that was the Bush presidency?
[Snip]
In a way that was inconceivable when he took office, Mr. Bush -- the advance man for the "ownership society," smaller and more trustworthy government, and a humble foreign policy -- increased the size and scope of the federal government to unprecedented levels. At the same time, he constantly flashed signs of secrecy, duplicity, ineffectiveness and outright incompetence.
Think for a moment about the thousands of Transportation Security Administration screeners -- newly minted government employees all -- who continue to confiscate contact-lens solution and nail clippers while, according to nearly every field test, somehow failing to notice simulated bombs in passenger luggage.
Or schoolchildren struggling under No Child Left Behind, which federalized K-12 education to an unprecedented degree with nothing to show for it other than greater spending tabs. Or the bizarrely structured Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the largest entitlement program created since LBJ. Or the simple reality that taxpayers now guarantee some $8 trillion in inscrutable loans to a financial sector that collapsed from inscrutable loans.
Such programs were not in any way foisted on Mr. Bush, the way that welfare reform had been on Bill Clinton; they were signature projects, designed to create a legacy every bit as monumental and inspiring as Laura Bush's global literacy campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Somewhere (over the rainbow?) surely there is a world for all the Bush haters,a place to cuss and moan till your dying days
here’s my def of conservative: if he liberal press hates you, you’re a conservative. a second is like unto it: if you don’t jump on the elitist band wagon of the moment(in Bush’s time, 1.global warming, 2. universal health care), you’re a conservative , and willing to pay a huge price for it.
Since the states COMPETE with one another -- competition for the good -- States can be very effective, in theory. What is hibbling is when we have basket cases like California and Michician getting bailed out by the fed, or states begging the fedgov to take over state programs.
If there is any hope of recovering from the economic calamity coming at us due to a congestive heart failing, morbidly obese, diabetic, and senility insane FedGov, it is in the states getting stronger, and taking over some key roles that the FedGov now has -- notably (1) the issuance of money and (2) business regulation.
exactly right, again the big picture, 10,000 expected deaths, actual 1,000.
****Somewhere (over the rainbow?) surely there is a world for all the Bush haters,a place to cuss and moan till your dying days*****
Good, because he sure screwed this place up.
Government AT ALL LEVELS - local, state or federal has too much power and seizes too much of the people’s money.
Period.
Any discussion about conservatism that deviates from this basic principle enunciated by Ronald Reagan is not useful.
This is the epitomy of a dunderhead view of the world ... The American people brought you Obama, they also brought you George Washingston, Nixon and Carter. Get over it.
But what of his actions? California, his state, is a dead man walking. Under Reagan, the Fedgov grew.
You don't peel an onion from the inside.
And what the hell have you done but moan?
I would love to see one of you guys last a day in the most powerful postion in the world.
Agreed. But I think (and this is my opinion) he tried to limit its growth and was sincere in his beliefs toward that end. It would be interesting to see what could have been done if Reagan and the 1994 GOP House and Senate were all together.
But what do do now? Money has somehow got to be shut off flowing to government. Personally, I think if withholding were done away with, things would work out pretty damn quick.
Doesn't matter. All conservatives and Republicans care about anymore is race, ethnicity, gender, and pandering. And it's no coincidence that they are now becoming consistent losers who are tearing up the country as much as the Democrats and liberals.
If I am not mistaken, when he was governor of California, Reagan eliminated (or proposed the elimination of) the withholding of state income taxes so as to demonstrate to people how much their state government was costing them.
I believe Prop. 13 followed in short order.
Because we were sick of the Clintons, and we assumed that any Republican would naturally follow the example of Reagan.
I remember one thing that precipitated Prop 13 was the inflationary increases in Cali property values during the 70s. Hugh property tax increases also resulted.
****And what the hell have you done but moan? *****
I voted for the Constitution Party. I encouraged everyone to do the same. Check my previous posts.
I wrote my Representatives, Senators, and Presidents.
Thanks for your interest.
***Think for a moment about the thousands of Transportation Security Administration screeners — newly minted government employees all***
>>>To be fair, Bush did not want these people to be goobermint employees. That was the price ‘rats extracted for approving the Homeland Security bill. The screeners before 9/11 were doing just fine and needed no replacement. But they weren’t union y’see.
A small point, but if this guy is misleading on small points who knows what error he introduces on larger points. >>>
You’re absolutely right about both points.
The first problem is defining conservative. The term has no meaning anymore.
Both freetraders and protectionists claim to be conservative. Both pro-abortion and pro-life people claim to be conservative. Both interventionists internationally and isolationists claim to be conservative. People on both sides of the debate over homosexual marriage claim to be conservative. The "conservatives" spent more money faster than any other entity in the history of the world from 2000-2006.
Reagan assembled a coalition of libertarians, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Through his political genius, he also made being a Republican "cool," attracting the politically unaligned. These are not natural bedfellows, and now everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else claiming that to make things work, we have to start out by kicking one of the other groups out.
The big push now is to get rid of the pro-lifers and the social conservatives. That's roughly 1/3rd of the electorate.
Me? My business is going well and I'm sitting out for a while on politics. Life's good and I spent nearly twenty years at the local level in Republican politics trying to get these bozos to play nice. I can't be of any benefit anymore, and I'm not going to get an ulcer trying to get people to get along when they'd rather lose and kick everyone else out of the room.
“The honest conservative answer to that answer is NO.”
Are you saying our military build-up, WOT, Homeland Security and other security costs are not the primary reason for the increased number receiving government checks and increase in budget??
Not quite.
Even defense of the Republic has to live within the means. The pork that was used as currency to buy that defense from the left is inexcusable. Conservative principles still apply and it has to be within the constraints of the ability of a free market economy being able to afford them long term.
Can’t say I have much to add to that. It is very nice he’s gone. Pity about Obama, though. Prep for another 4 years of lunacy in government.
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.