Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives also buy big government
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | August 19, 2003 | Jim Wooten

Posted on 08/19/2003 2:26:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Somewhere between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, conservatives may have lost the battle against big government.

Oddly enough, as the partisan differences grow sharper, the practical differences between the two major parties grows fuzzier, at least on domestic issues. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, describes Bush as a "big-government conservative."

The president has shown no discomfort with big government or increasing federal spending. In his first two years in office, Bush increased spending on schools by 40 percent. He's proposed a prescription drug benefit for Medicare that will cost $400 billion over 10 years. On both education and prescription drugs, Bush's top Democratic ally has been the icon of congressional liberalism, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

While they acknowledge the reality of big government, Bush and Kennedy veer sharply from a common start. The No Child Left Behind Act is a good example. Some background:

Public schools are a responsibility of state and local government. The federal government contributes only about 7 cents on the dollar. It has concentrated its efforts on the heavy-burden exceptions: special education, the poor, and aid to local systems disproportionately affected by military bases. The point is that the federal government has rightly deferred to states and to local school boards to drive education.

Since 1965, the federal government has spent more than $120 billion on schools serving the poor with little to show for it. Bush, in seeking reauthorization two years ago, agreed to increase spending by 11.5 percent, including $9.1 billion for poor schools, a sum that is up to $12.3 billion in the 2004 budget, the most federal dollars ever.

Kennedy, who welcomed the spending, sees No Child Left Behind as a massive new infusion of federal money. He wants more. "Reform without resources is just hollow talk," he said. "The president's proposal may provide the money to test our children, but not enough to teach them."

Kennedy, starting with big government, finishes with bigger government. Bush, starting with big government, finishes with a distinctly different government -- not smaller, but decentralized.

Bush's education secretary, Rod Paige, argued that accountability requirements would provide essential information to parents, leading them to demand alternatives. Conservatives saw it as more unwarranted federal spending and without reforms, such as vouchers, dropped at Kennedy's behest.

Two years later, it's obvious that Paige was right. The federal government, taking a page from the liberals' book, has become the driving force in pushing states to embrace choice and to give parents more freedom in where they send their children. The direction is set, and No Child Left Behind has done it.

Americans have grown comfortable with big government, a legacy of the 1960s. As a culture, we have bought into the notion that adults can be as irresponsible as they choose in lifestyle decisions and government will construct a safety net to catch their consequences. In some cases, it's not irresponsibility; it is that adults have changed behaviors to conform to government incentives. In Georgia, for example, 73 percent of undergraduate students receive state grants, giving parents incentives to spend the money their parents saved for the children's college. Government has built a dependency and, since 25 percent of the nation's taxpayers pay 84 percent of the cost of government, there's no incentive to go back.

Bush grows government, but activates it for conservative ends, just as the Great Society programs of the 1960s did for liberals. Roles now are reversed. Conservatives push for change; liberals defend the status quo.

Liberals scoff at programs such as those promoting marriage or encouraging teen abstinence as foolish conservative activism by government. Maybe. But when was the last time you saw somebody smoking on television? No one thing works. But if liberal activism used government as a vehicle to drive society in one direction, conservative activism can use it to take society in another.

Jim Wooten is associate editorial page editor. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; conservatives; education; nclb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
To solve students' math problems, educators go to school - Boosting teacher skills seen as key*** The report also recommends that colleges and universities boost their math requirements for education majors. Many schools require no more than a single math course for future teachers.***
1 posted on 08/19/2003 2:26:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
There is a ratchet effect at work here. Bureaucracies, once established, are among one of the most persistent life forms on this planet. While some of the fat can be trimmed at the edges, the constituencies that created the official institutional agencies in the first place maintain a death grip on their means of sustenance, no matter how shrunken or shriveled they may become. Only when the last member of a privileged class has expired, does the function of the established service office finally disappear, and without continuing and renewed scrutiny, the level of funding proceeds forever.
2 posted on 08/19/2003 3:14:52 AM PDT by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
This could be titled "defining conservatism down."

It is in this respect that Bush offends 'true' conservatives -- those that believe the Constitution limits federal reach (and not that "general welfare" means that most of the people are on welfare).

We should distinguish Bush Republicans (those that like big government) from conservatives (those that don't).

3 posted on 08/19/2003 3:34:17 AM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Government has built a dependency and, since 25 percent of the nation's taxpayers pay 84 percent of the cost of government, there's no incentive to go back.

***Bush's education secretary, Rod Paige, argued that accountability requirements would provide essential information to parents, leading them to demand alternatives. Conservatives saw it as more unwarranted federal spending and without reforms, such as vouchers, dropped at Kennedy's behest. ***

We get the goverment we ask for.

4 posted on 08/19/2003 3:41:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ed_in_NJ
This could be titled "defining conservatism down."

Or it could be titled "turning the beast on itself."

5 posted on 08/19/2003 3:42:39 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"conservatives may have lost the battle against big governmen"

This is a giant understatement.

6 posted on 08/19/2003 3:47:55 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (It's now the Al Davis GOP...........................Just Win Baby !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Conservatives also buy big government

Typical Urinal/Constipation editorial. It starts with a lie and goes from there. NO, CONSERVATIVES are not into more government. Republicans are. Republicans are not conservatives. Wooten deliberately uses the word conservative to describe leftist republicans thus denying the existence of true conservatives - something that the dedicated Marxists on the editorial board of the U/C would like to see totally go away. In the "minds" of the editorial board of the Atlanta fish wrapper there can never be too many laws, taxes on the hard working can never be too high, there can never be too many restrictions on the 2nd through 10th amendments, and government can never be too big.

7 posted on 08/19/2003 3:59:28 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Wooten is a conservative.
8 posted on 08/19/2003 4:03:46 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The president has shown no discomfort with big government or increasing federal spending.

But he looks so good in a flight suit.

This is a lame, limp, weak attempt to somehow describe Bush as conservative, no more convincing than the flight suit argument.

9 posted on 08/19/2003 4:05:04 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("I want a man with grit."..................Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
The country is losing the battle. Unfortunately most Americans aren't as conservative as posters to FR.

You have to be smarter than lying LIBERALS to turn the tide of me-me-itis.

10 posted on 08/19/2003 4:05:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I think it's a good example. The size of government will not change until we get solid majorities on the Hill and in state governments.
11 posted on 08/19/2003 4:07:09 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Wooten is a conservative.

Not by any evidence that I've seen. He might possibly think he is one, but at best he's probably a liberal Republican. The truth remains that conservatives have NOT by any means embraced big government - it's the republicans who've done this

12 posted on 08/19/2003 4:21:39 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Oh, sure, one needs the votes in elections and subsequently in the Congress, but the big problem is that Bush expands the power, size, scope and cost of government and does it all the time claiming it is conservative to do so.

He has changed the debate from Reagan's 'government is not the solution......' to the idea the more powerful, more expensive, more intrusive government is a good thing.

13 posted on 08/19/2003 4:27:27 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("I want a man with grit."..................Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; from occupied ga
Ronald Reagan was elected after Jimmy Carter's term with soaring interest rates and military embarrassments. Bush was elected after eight years of Clinton and, a believed to be, good economy (smoke and mirrors before 9-11 exposed Enron, et al).

Bush is dealing with the here and now. So much of our infrastructure and national defenses had been left to rot (including education}. He's doing what he needs to do to turn things around and in stay in office to accomplish something with a citizenry that has grown "needy." You work with what you have to get where you want to go.

14 posted on 08/19/2003 5:13:25 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Ideas matter.

The idea that it is a good thing to make the government bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, more expensive is a bad one.

You work with what you have to get where you want to go.

And Bush wants to go where..........? The answer is obvious by his words and his deeds. And it is not pretty, even if he is, and he has the (R) after his name and he's a nice guy.

15 posted on 08/19/2003 5:19:32 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("I want a man with grit."..................Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Re your post 7: you hit the nail on the head. "Big government" and "conservative" are antithetical. If you're for big government, you are not a conservative. If you're a conservative, you are not for big government. If Bush is for big government (and all evidence I have seen points in that direction), he is not a conservative.

I have no fascination with the labels "Republican" or "Democrat." Instead, let me know what policies the candidate will pursue.

And I've also had it with the "lesser of two evils" argument. I can't abide any more constitution-ignoring, big spending candidates, regardless of the party flavor.
16 posted on 08/19/2003 5:33:48 AM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Bush is dealing with the here and now....He's doing what he needs to do to turn things around and in stay in office to accomplish something with a citizenry that has grown "needy."

There is so much wrong with this I hardly know where to begin. Let's start with edjekayshun.

Before dismal Jimmy, education wasn't a cabinet level office, yet oddly enough Americans were better educated coming out of high school than they are today, and constant dollar spending of education was less than today. This indicates that maybe the federal government's endless rules and PC treatment of education is probably making children dumber more ignorant than 30 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that not everyone is created equal. Some are smart. Some are dumb as dirt. When you educate everyone on the convoy system (ie hold the pace to the slowest) then everyone is held to the level of the dumbest kid in the class. Ability grouping - something that was standard practice 50 years ago is spoken of now in the same light as incest and pedophilia. Mustn't hurt the feeling of the dumbasses after all they have to feel that they're as good as anyone else.

The citizenry hasn't grown "needy." Need is now and always has been infinite. You can NEVER fill the "needs" of everyone from the public coffers, because as soon as you squander some largess on the "needy" then they immediately "need" something else. The only way to do this is to force the irresponsible a$$holes to work for a living.

Government bureaucrats have a strong vested interest in expanding government. The bigger the government the more money it steals from honest people and spends on itself. For some strange reason, the media, especially lying $hit filled rags like the Urinal/Constipation have become willing cheerleaders for ever bigger government. The media is in bed with the bureaucrats, and the only place to get the truth is the alternative media like Free Republic.

Saying Jim Wooten is a conservative is like saying George Bush is a conservative. It just ain't so. There hasn't been a true conservative thought expressed at the Urinal in the last 40 years.

17 posted on 08/19/2003 5:49:58 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I'd answer back but you've misrepresented the article, my remarks and Jim Wooten's position so well, I think I'll leave well enough alone.
18 posted on 08/19/2003 6:11:16 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Yes, ideas do matter but if no one is listening you can't lead. You can tilt at windmills or you can get down in the ditch and get dirty.
19 posted on 08/19/2003 6:12:46 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
I'd answer back but you've misrepresented the article, my remarks and Jim Wooten's position so well, I think I'll leave well enough alone.

The article, your remarks, and Wooten's position all speak for themselves. The only misrepresentation is yours.

20 posted on 08/19/2003 6:18:06 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The basic infrastructure of large gov't is here to stay, with only tinkering at the margins being politically acceptable.Your choices are Dems who will tax and spend, or Pubbies who will tax cut and spend, with some tweaking thrown into the equation.Wooten and his ilk ought to stop moaning about this fact, which has been a reality since Jimmy Carter's day, and find ways to ameliorate it's effects in a politically feasible manner.
21 posted on 08/19/2003 6:29:57 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Yes, ideas do matter but if no one is listening you can't lead.

Isn't that one facet of leadership...getting people to listen? Otherwise one is just a simple minded caretaker, a follower. Bush is clearly not simple minded.

You can tilt at windmills or you can get down in the ditch and get dirty.

I take it you do not agree that Bush's words and deeds suggest he believes bigger, more powerful, more intrusive government in several areas (education, farm, medicare....) is a good thing. How come? Getting in that ditch is not doing our country much good at home, the tax cuts excepted.

For some reason, the Bush defenders simply refuse to acknowledge that certain actions are not conservative. They seem happier with axioms, anecdotes and platitudes and analogies. At best they may say 'I don't agree with everything....' without much in specifics.

How can we ever get to where we want, assuming we want smaller, less intrusive, less costly, Constitutional government, if we refuse to clearly identify and criticize certain actions that lead in the entirely opposite direction?

22 posted on 08/19/2003 6:31:51 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("I want a man with grit."..................Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga; Cincinatus' Wife
Additional comments here.

Also, Wooten certainly does have a different take on "conservative" big government spending than other articles have taken on the topic.

In other words, is decentralizing big government bureaucracy while resourcing big government mandates (especially if those mandates promote a conservative approach to social issues such as education and faith-based initiatives to combat welfare) anti-conservative?

23 posted on 08/19/2003 6:35:49 AM PDT by optimistically_conservative (Can't prove a negative? You're not stupid. Prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Thanks for the LINK. I usually catch myself from double posting.

Bump!

24 posted on 08/19/2003 6:59:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Wooten and his ilk ought to stop moaning about this fact, which has been a reality since Jimmy Carter's day, and find ways to ameliorate it's effects in a politically feasible manner.

I believe they're doing just that.

25 posted on 08/19/2003 7:00:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
It would seem we've read different articles. I see Bush doing what you're suggesting. you don't.
26 posted on 08/19/2003 7:01:55 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
NO, CONSERVATIVES are not into more government. Republicans are.

BUMP!

27 posted on 08/19/2003 7:05:48 AM PDT by StriperSniper (Make South Korea an island)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The bigger that government gets, the more important it is to keep the Democrats out of control.

If Bush, who is a moderate, lost the popular vote in 2000, then a Conservative would have lost in a landslide.

There is no such thing as a True Conservative.

28 posted on 08/19/2003 7:09:47 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

...and, small Government is an ideal; big government is the real. There ain't no small government and you will never see one in your lifetime. In the meantime, whether the governemnt is big, small, or in between, we have to make sure that the Democrats do not control any of it. And, no, the parties are not the same; and anyone running against a Democrat has earned your vote; and don't let your principles, morals, or conscience get in the way of common sense. It's not just about you.
29 posted on 08/19/2003 7:12:52 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Consort
You, for one, don't appear to have let principles, morals, or conscience get in your way of supporting Republicans, regardless of the positions they take. I, for one, am not giving up on small government, because therein lies more freedom (a principle, and an important one). My battle is not against Democrats as such. If there are any Dims who respect the constitutional limits of the federal government and seek to reduce the size of government, I'll support them. Of course, I don't know of any Dims who fit this description. I don't have a battle with the Republicans, either. Unlike the Dims, I do find a few Republicans who seem to be willing to refrain from "federalizing" everything in sight and buying votes with my money. They seem to be in the minority, however. I support conservatives, of whatever stripe they may be. If they are not for smaller government, I don't support them, regardless of party identification. (I don't blindly support any party.)

No doubt there were those in this country who opposed the American revolution, urging our founding fathers not to "let your principles, morals, or conscience get in the way of common sense." I am glad such naysayers did not carry the day.
30 posted on 08/19/2003 7:55:29 AM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: reelfoot
You, for one, don't appear to have let...

My statement still applies, regardless.

I, for one, am not giving up on small government, because therein lies more freedom (a principle, and an important one).

Which of the major parties is more likely to shrink government over the long run?

My battle is not against Democrats as such. If there are any Dims who respect the constitutional limits of the federal government and seek to reduce the size of government, I'll support them.

Then you are part of the problem. Electing such Democrats gives the whole Democrat Party more power and they will ignore what the Conservative Democrats have to say. The Liberals like your attitude.

Of course, I don't know of any Dims who fit this description.

Yes, but you are vulnerable.

No doubt there were those in this country who opposed the American revolution,...

There are plenty of people against everything. That's the way it is.

31 posted on 08/19/2003 8:11:20 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Consort
"My statement still applies, regardless."

Res ipsa loquitur.

"Which of the major parties is more likely to shrink government over the long run?"

Based upon the run-away spending of the current President and congress, I would have to say "Neither."

"The Liberals like your attitude."

I suspect, rather, the liberals like someone who will blindly vote for constitution-ignoring, big-spending politicians merely because of being enamored of a party name.

"Yes, but you are vulnerable."

I am not vulnerable to voting for big spenders. You apparently are.

"That's the way it is."

Therein is the problem.
32 posted on 08/19/2003 9:15:15 AM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: reelfoot
It all boils down to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. If you're the type to worry about what somebody's up to with their genitalia, you vote Rebpublican, if not, you vote Democrat.
33 posted on 08/19/2003 9:20:16 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: reelfoot
Weak...you lose.
34 posted on 08/19/2003 9:20:43 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Wooten is a liberal? Dig up the archives of his columns and I doubt anyone could say that with a straight face. I doubt anyone could call him a moderate with a straight face. He was the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal, the old afternoon paper in Atlanta, before it folded, and the Journal's editorial page was quite to the right. Cox Newspapers covered both sides in Atlanta in those days, the Journal was conservative and the Constitution, just as now, is quite liberal.

Is he a Freeper-like true conservative? Probably not, but neither is most of the U.S. Confidentially, just in case it hasn't dawned on everyone here, people who believe like us are in the minority in this country. And that's remained true in every year in which "conservatism" has won victories ... 1980, 84, 94, 00, 02.

It's won those victories and nothing has really changed, and we get all hot and bothered and rant and rave, when IMHO the simple fact is that there is no great desire among the American electorate ... even those who voted with "us" ... to totally undo the New Deal and Great Society and go completely back to "true conservatism" or "rugged individualism" or whatever you want to call it.

I've mentioned my father here many times, rest his soul. He voted Republican/conservative for the last quarter century of his life (and he didn't die as an old man, was 61) and he utterly REVERED Ronald Reagan ... but at the same time he cast those votes he was an unrepentant New Dealer who wanted every bit of federal largesse that was coming his way, a union man to his very core and he rejoiced in every federal court decision designed to make things fair for "the little man."

And I daresay that disconnect between how people vote and what they believe is not uncommon in this country. Or we can delude ourselves and think that everybody in those Dem strongholds that voted for Reagan in '84 was doing it because they wanted to take the country back to true conservatism. No, it was a personal victory for Reagan without a thing to do with philosophy ... and I fear Bush will be re-elected for the same reason next year and there'll be a whole bunch more people here disappointed with him.

So what do we do, give up and move to the hills? No, we have two choices ... (a.) take this country back to true conservatism through armed revolt and revolution or (b.) keep plugging away and try to educate people and sell them on why true conservatism is best and right, even if it takes 500 years.

I rather prefer option B.

35 posted on 08/19/2003 11:08:33 AM PDT by GB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I see you deal with facts.

Bump!

36 posted on 08/19/2003 12:14:55 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: reelfoot
I'd like our forefathers to return and add their two cents to the discussion. It is interesting how everyone speaks for them. This is not the same country it was then. I would like to hear their take on current events.
37 posted on 08/19/2003 12:18:04 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GB
I rather prefer option B.

Me too. Option A will always be there.

38 posted on 08/19/2003 12:19:24 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"So much of our infrastructure and national defenses had been left to rot (including education}."

Please. Throwing more money at the failing school infrastructure in a big fat Teddy Kennedy spend-fest is not going to solve the problem and that's just what Bush did. Bush is doing a good job in the international arena, but domestically, he is not a conservative. The GOP controls the big three branches of the FedGov there has been little in terms of conservative initiatives.

39 posted on 08/19/2003 12:29:23 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Again, give Bush real majorities then complain about what is or isn't getting done. You don't cut someone off at the knees and then compain that he hasn't signed up for the broad jump.
40 posted on 08/19/2003 12:39:05 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"Again, give Bush real majorities..."

I call that GOP creep. "If we only had Congress, we could get things done. If we only had the Presidency we could get things done. If we only had both Congress AND the Presidency we could get things done. If we only had two thirds majority in both Congress AND the Presidency we could get things done."

The GOP only does the politically expedient thing to do. The rate cut was good, but why not push for true tax reform? Why did he give up on school vouchers? Why did he sign CFR when "I know some stuff may be unconstitutional".

I realize that FR doesn't represent much other than the extreme right in this country, but the RNC could push for some true governmental reform at the federal level instead of having a big happy charlie foxtrot with Democrats.
41 posted on 08/19/2003 12:43:57 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
I guess the glass will aways be half empty for you. What did you expect after 8 years of democrats worming their way deep into every corner they could find? If you want to act like a bull in a china shop, when things are so fragile, you'll usher in a era that will bury any reform.
42 posted on 08/19/2003 12:51:14 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: All
Home Starts Hit 17-Year High***Yet economists and Federal Reserve officials have said with spending making up a little more than two-thirds of the economy, what matters is whether consumers are opening their wallets when their confidence is shaky.

And so far consumers keep shopping, even through the most widespread power outage in U.S. history. Weekly sales at chain and department stores stayed brisk and suggested retail sales are in for another strong month.

"Don't watch what people say, see what they do. And what they do is really impressive," said Alan Ruskin, research director at 4Cast Ltd. in New York.

With the upbeat economic news pouring in during the past two months, economists have busily hiked their expectations for economic growth this quarter to 4 percent or more, a big step up from last quarter's 2.4 percent pace.***

43 posted on 08/19/2003 12:53:11 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Just keep waiting, oh and give us more money. - GOP theme.
44 posted on 08/19/2003 1:13:23 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Just give us more time and money and we'll sell out the country from within - Democrat theme.
45 posted on 08/19/2003 1:16:21 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Dems sell out the country, that's for sure, but the GOP often not much better.

I'll give them one thing, they're much better on National Security.
46 posted on 08/19/2003 2:11:32 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
It would seem we've read different articles. I see Bush doing what you're suggesting. you don't.

Hard to believe you are the same issue driven person who eloquently advocated Steve Forbes.

Hard to believe.

47 posted on 08/19/2003 4:22:52 PM PDT by RJCogburn ("I want a man with grit."..................Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Bush is the head of the Republican Party. We have to get behind the GOP machine if we want to keep moving LIBERALS out. Steve Forbes speaks his mind but he supports the Republican Party. You fight the good fight and then you pull together.
48 posted on 08/19/2003 11:39:19 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
The problem is "baseline budgeting". This stupid concept just takes last years budget and increases it while the legislature argues over the increase. So if a department wants a 10% increase and only gets a 5% increase, they go to the willing idiots in the press and complain about their budget being "cut".

Once the government puts in a level of baseline, it always goes up faster than they can justify. But there are still way too many TOTAL IDIOTS voting because they receive direct benefits and are told to vote or lose them. The huge Democrat machine of vote buying is alive and well and hasn't changed much in decades. This is why they are so angry about 2000...they got caught cheating and couldn't steal an election and they want blood.

But as they dwindle and are forced back into obscurity because they can't even enforce the law (Democrats consistently block laws that require an ID to be presented when voting using "minority intimidation" as an excuse while they bus the same people from precint to precint), they will be eventually be defeated.

I myself take a digital video camera to poll places and film. More of us are doing it and we WILL catch them voting twice. We WILL catch them busing people to more than one place and we WILL confront them. Most of these Democrats are old farts from the 60's and you can kick their ass with no problem. Knock out a few teeth and give the video to local TV and you can stop this BS of voter fraud.

Want to get rid of bureaucracies? Audit the hell out of those agencies. FORCE zero base budgeting on them. FORCE accountability.

If they refuse? Blow a few knee caps off. They are too cowardly to fight back. Over the top? Maybe. But as we in Tennessee protested in Nashville to STOP an ILLEGAL income tax being imposed, the RINO governor (look out Calif) called out the state troopers once to stand there and hold their guns. Of course most of them were with us and if the feces hit the blades they would have turned and shot the politicians. But why does the government have the right to call them out? Don't we have the right then to also threaten force?

This is the same argument going on in California. Listen to the libs, the left, the Dems..they can't stand a LEGAL provision isn't under their total control.

Yes, I'm ranting. But come on folks...they don't have the power they think they do. Take it. Use it. Make changes. FORCE THEM for a change to adhere to OUR wishes and not their selfish wants.

If only 20% of those that don't vote registered and voted, you could elect Flipper the President of the United States.

WAKE UP AMERICA!


49 posted on 08/19/2003 11:56:12 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Democrats have stunted brain development!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I used to get all upset about the situation, as you are, and tried to talk sense into people nearly all the time. Did this for over thirty years. You might as well be talking to a post. People are very rarely rational, most of them, most of the time. If there is one thing that can be learned from history, this is it.

As (as I recall) Burke said, "You can't reason a person out of a belief he wasn't reasoned into."

The reality is that Democracy in the sense of "one man, one vote" has the result you are so upset with. You will never, never get people to give up what they want, whether irresponsible or self destructive, by talk, but only by coercion.

50 posted on 08/20/2003 11:50:56 AM PDT by Iris7 ("..the Eternal Thompson Gunner.." - Zevon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson