George W. Bush's address was a safe, albeit long-winded, speech. He did himself no harm. In many ways, it was Clintonian--proposing a number of minor programs and amorphous "reforms."
By my count, the president proposed about a dozen new spending projects. In one breath, Bush announced that "government should help people improve their lives." In another, he pointed to "restraining federal spending" as a second-term priority.
President Bush promised "direct help for low-income Americans to purchase" medical savings accounts, to "ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center," and to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance program." He looked to government for the solution to anemic job growth as well. President Bush announced that he would seek to "double the number of people served by our principal job training program." As recently as eight years ago, the Republican platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education. After four years of expanding the federal education budget, the leader of the Republican Party pushed to "fund early intervention programs to help students at risk," "require rigorous exams before graduation," and expand "Pell grants for low and middle income families."
If that's President Bush's idea of "restraining federal spending," I'd hate to see his wish list of programs when he is in a more "generous" mood.
On the plus side, Bush reiterated his support for protecting the unborn and his opposition to activist judges attacking the institution of marriage. He expressed his desire to make the tax cuts lasting, and to "reform" (I would have preferred the word "abolish") the tax code. The most exciting and ambitious proposal involved Social Security. "We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account--a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away," he declared.
What's troubling is the reality that President Bush's conservative proposals will meet opposition and probably fail to pass. His big-government programs, on the other hand, will attract liberals and White House lackeys on the Republican side. Their prospects for becoming law are much greater.
No doubt some of the more conservative conventioneers enthusiastically chanting "Four More Years," in moments of clear thought, began to silently wonder: "Four More Years?"
Four more years of making the word 'conservative' even harder to use in normal conversation than it was before.
thats weird i thought the people chanting for 4 more years was the U.S. mens basketball team counting down the days till they redeem themselves in China? Silly me!
What kills me is that some tout to be conservative, then tout how they obtained $2 billion for bridges back home (Anne Northrup).
We need the line item veto, an amendment for one, not just a law that will be struck down by the courts.
Where are the Federalisits when you need them?
Be well,
Sponge
