Whats $140 Billion Between Friends?
by Jason at 1:46 am on January 30th, 2004 in Bush Man Date, CorruptionOver the course of the Bush Presidency, the administration has shown a remarkable ability in getting its agenda passed no matter what it takes. With the recently-passed Medicare overhaul, the administration had more than a bunch of spoilsport Democrats to deal with�many conservatives also balked at the bill after seeing the ten-year $395 billion price tag. Eventually the bill passed by five votes, but only after the House leadership begged and pleaded the conservatives for their support.
And hey, guess what? The price tag for the Medicare bill has now jumped to $534 billion, a full third more than had been projected. With the 2004 federal deficit ballooning to a massive $520 billion, it’s kind of hard to take the Republicans seriously as “the party of fiscal responsibility” anymore. Anyone for more tax cuts?
But the fascinating part of this story is that the Bush Administration seems fully willing to use misinformation campaigns and strong-arm tactics on members of its own party. Considering that the House roll call was held open for three hours (an unprecedented amount) before enough support could be found, it’s safe to assume that a certain amount of smoke was being blown up the dissenters’ asses. Fall in line and put on a happy face.
I have to imagine that, deep down, some of the fiscal conservatives are hopping mad about how this played out. But I doubt we’ll hear much about it… at least not on the record.
Greedo wrote:
I know the following quote is from a very unpopular person, but I think it summarizes the feelings of true fiscal conservatives and a sentiment that I think will be echoed as long as Bush continues to spend irresponsibly.
“There is not even the smallest thing “conservative” about tax cuts and spending increases as far as the eye can see. Republicans who pretend otherwise are selling a “free lunch” that wastes wealth, decapitalizes the country and burdens the next generation with a massive negative compound interest problem. All that is being done is a con job on public in which the people are fooled into thinking they and the country are wealthier than they really are - and that govenment goodies are a costless “free lunch”. Well, there is no free lunch. The classic “unseen” cost of this “free lunch” shell game is the cost which will be borne by later generations who will be burdened with the massive weight of government debt, rather than advantaged by the wealth stream made possibly by private sector capital goods investment.”
- Rush Limbaugh, 1/29/04
As a member of said “later generation,” I couldn’t agree more.
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 7:17 am ¶
matt wrote:
The problem is that everyone agrees with this, but no one seems to want to stop it. House Republicans could have shut this down in a second to say nothing of a handful of Senate Rs. Are they that scared of the White House? It’s pitiful, and not an accident. They are taking “starve the beast” dogma to an extreme that even I couldn’t have imagined just a few months ago.
It’s hard to imagine a more reckless course than the one we’re on. I don’t know how any true conservative could vote for this president in November. Any of the major Dems would be more fiscally conservative (and less authoritarian as well).
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 8:30 am ¶
Forager wrote:
I think, like most politicians would, why would they want to rock the boat and miss out on a great speech by the Pres or VP in their state during election time… or from getting their own pork barrel bills pushed through in the wee hours of the night during a snow storm? They ride the wave, and everyone stays happy.
of course I’m not happy with any of this either…
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 10:29 am ¶
Greedo wrote:
If by fiscally conservative you mean raising taxes on everyone to pay for the enormous spending increases.
Forager is right, no Pres. fearing Republican is going to vote against something like Medicare during an election season. It’s suicide.
I think the only reason people will be voting for Pres. Bush in Nov. is because they realize the importance of the war on terror. While I, like so many others, hate is domestic policies, there is a larger issue at hand–the security of this nation against terrorism. In the end it’s either we defend ourselves and eliminate the threat or we wing it and follow weak police policies that the Dem. candidates endorse–when the result of the latter is potentially bio, chem, or nuclear disaster.
This is why I keep returning to Bush for November.
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 11:12 am ¶
tom wrote:
so we should keep killing arabs until we feel safe? thats great for national security. unless we wipe out every single one of them, there’ll be more to be angry about this round of our interference in their region.
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 11:28 am ¶
matt wrote:
Greedo: We’re not any safer. It’s just a fact. Read anything about port security lately? The money for homeland security is being turned into pork.
They haven’t hit us again because they haven’t needed to. Look at the ripples that the first one caused.
By conservative i mean balancing the fucking budget. You can keep “returning to bush”, but it’s not logical.
Get past the party tags for a minute. Bush is reckless.
You are getting married soon. How do you feel about your children inheriting this debt? How do you feel that the president flat out lied in the SOTU when he promised to cut the deficit in half in 5 years.
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 12:17 pm ¶
tom wrote:
BTW “hopping mad” is one of my favorite phrases ever.
Posted 30 Jan 2004 at 1:42 pm ¶
Jon Arnett wrote:
When I turned 18 I registered to vote as the first Republican in my family. Through 1998 I always voted the GOP ticket. However, following Clinton’s acquittal with 10 Republican votes I changed my voter status to “no party”. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, but don’t plan to vote for him again.
In 2002 I offered my support to a Republican woman who was planning to challenge incumbent Corrine Brown in Florida’s 3rd CD. However, the GOP establishment in Florida did not want anyone to challenge Brown- fearing that a high black turnout for Brown would hurt Republicans in other races, namely Jeb Bush. The Republican Party harassed my candidate to the point that she withdrew from the race. I immediately began looking for an alternative candidate, but could not find one. Then within a week of J. C. Watts announcing his retirement from Congress, Jennifer Carroll, the GOP’s failed 2000 candidate, announced she would resign from her state job- effective on the last day of the qualifying period.
To insure that Brown did have a challenger I became a write-in candidate. My purpose was to harass the GOP since I knew I would not be able to campaign and had no chance of winning. Still I received about 100 votes without spending a dime.
I have always known that the Democrats are the party for the welfare state. I have since realized that the Republicans are the party for millionaires. We need a party for everyone else.
I find it alarming that some conservatives that don’t like Bush will vote for him anyway out of fear of a Democrat victory. I find it equally alarming that Democrats will vote for whomever their party nominates out of fear that Bush will be re-elected. As long as Americans vote for one of the major parties out of fear of the other I don’t see how they won’t be wasting their votes. If you are going to vote for the Democrats or Republicans no matter what, these parties will take your vote for granted. These parties will assume that they can do whatever they want because you are going to vote for one of them regardless of what they do or don’t do.
Americans must realize that the Democrats and the Republicans have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Neither party will acknowledge, let alone deal with, the nation’s most pressing issues. Do the Republicans really want to end abortion, reform the tax code or reduce the size of government? No, they don’t want to give up their campaign issues. Do the Democrats really want to protect the environment, make public schools effective or stand up for American workers? No, they don’t want to give up their campaign issues. Will either party confront the growing power of corporations? No, both parties are allied with and controlled by corporations.
No one who wants to make fundamental changes in American politics will vote for the Democrats or Republicans. No one who really wants to find workable solutions to the nation’s problems will vote for the Democrats or Republicans. Such voters must join together and provide the nation with a viable alternative political party. The American people must either hold the Democrat and Republican parties accountable to their interests- or destroy them.
Jon Arnett
Interim National Director,
The National Union Party
http://www.unionparty.rantweb.com
Posted 03 Mar 2004 at 3:31 pm ¶