www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/09-09-2002/vo18no18_disguise.htm
Bush 37 Printer Friendly Version 38 Order This Issue George W. Bush has masqueraded as a conservative while actually advancing a liberal agenda. When Bill Clinton boasted that "the era of big government is over," there were probably more belly laughs than nods. After all, Clinton was widely recognized as a big-spending liberal. He was seen by many as a dangerous demagogue with an insatiable appetite for power, an appetite that might have consumed our liberties if not for public and congressional resistance. But with the election of supposed conservative George W. Bush, the public vigilance that helped keep Bill Clinton's lust for power in check appears to have waned. Many Republicans and conservatives -- who were quick to challenge President Clinton's every power grab -- fail to recognize the hypocrisy when President George W. Bush requesting billions of dollars for unconstitutional welfare state activities in the first place? How can an allegedly "conservative" president be so free with the taxpayers' money? Unfortunately, although Bush enjoys the reputation of a conservative, his own record shows that he is a liberal. In fact, his liberalism may be more dangerous than that of his immediate predecessor. Bill Clinton, a lifelong Democrat with a far-left pedigree, often provoked resistance from congressional Republicans and conservatives in general. Yet Republican congressmen who refused to support Clinton's liberal policies have willingly supported similar policies when offered by fellow Republican George W. Consequently, Bush has been more effective than his predecessor, in many ways, in advancing Clintonian liberalism. Bush's Bloated Budget A month after becoming president, Mr. Bush explained in a press conference (February 22, 2001) that his budget would reduce the rate at which spending is increasing -- but without cutting spending in the absolute sense. But in the end, Bush didn't even put on the brakes, but hit the accelerator instead. In a midterm budget summary released in July, the Bush administration estimated fiscal 2002 spending at a whopping $2,032 billion as compared to actual fiscal 2001 spending of $1,864 -- a nine percent increase. The bottom line: Federal spending is increasing at a faster rate with George W. Bush in the White House than it did with Bill Clinton in the White House. While the January 18, 1999 cover shot of Bill Clinton didn't raise a stir, some Republican readers expressed outrage over the nearly identical picture of President Bush featured on the August 13, 2001 issue. Other budget trends also make the Clinton era appear more fiscally conservative by comparison. When Clinton was president, the annual budget deficits as calculated by the federal government became successively smaller and were eventually replaced with surpluses as high as $236 billion (fiscal 2000). But in the budget he submitted in February of this year, the $231 billion surplus for fiscal 2002 was refigured as a $106 billion deficit. In the July midterm budget summary submitted just five months later, the $106 billion deficit was refigured as a $165 billion deficit. Presumably the final figure will be relatively close to the latest estimate, since the fiscal year ends this September 30th. Nevertheless, even a $165 billion deficit is dwarfed by the $290 billion deficit in fiscal 1992 when George Bush the elder was president. Judging by current trends, Americans may someday view the Clinton presidency -- shocking though it may seem -- as an intermission of relative fiscal discipline between two big-spending presidents named Bush. How could a surplus originally projected at $231 billion become instead a $165 billion deficit? In a speech he gave in Milwaukee on August 14th, President Bush explained, without citing specific numbers: "Right now, we've got some deficits because of the recession and because we're funding the war on terror. But by restraining excessive spending, we can have our budget back in balance. Moreover, "insist ing on responsibility and on results" used to be called "regulation," and "conservative" used to mean leaving money in the hands of those who earned it instead of funneling it through Washington with strings attached.
America's offering a new compact for global development. At the end of this three-year period, the level of our annual development assistance will be $5 billion higher than current levels. And in return for these funds, we expect nations to rout out corruption, to open their markets, to respect human rights, and to adhere to the rule of law. This "partner" in our war against terrorism provides nuclear technology to Iran and has just confirmed its intent to sign a $40 billion economic deal with Iraq. Even more appalling was the Bush administration's aid to the Taliban of Afghanistan -- the folks who harbored Osama bin Laden and his terrorist training camps. On October 4th, just three weeks after September 11th, President Bush announced a $320 million aid package to Afghanistan and Afghan refugees in neighboring Central Asian republics. The money that had been going to the "bad guys" was now being diverted to the rival warlords and factions with whom we've aligned ourselves in the war on terrorism. Such is the perverse calculus of foreign aid, whether administered by a Republican or a Democrat administration. But what of Bush's war on terrorism and the "axis of evil"? Isn't the president doing a good job ridding the world of al-Qaeda and their terrorist sponsors and associates? The war against terrorism will never be won so long as we accommodate state sponsors of terrorism such as Russia and China. It will never end so long as we conduct it under the auspices of the terrorist-infested United Nations, where Syria -- another state sponsor of terrorism -- currently sits on the Security Council (and even chaired it during June of this year). It certainly won't be won by replacing one terrorist-friendly regime with another -- as has just occurred in Afghanistan. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai. Less than a month after attending Bush's speech, where he heard the president denounce Iran -- as well as North Korea and Iraq -- as a member of the "axis of evil," Afghanistan's Chairman Karzai went to Iran, where he met Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and told a news conference: "Our presence here is like going to your brother's house, because Iran is our brother country. Still, doesn't the need to protect the homeland justify the war on terrorism? Government must protect the homeland, which sometimes requires waging war. But when war is waged, the decision should not reside with a single individual. The likely first target of that doctrine is Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Bush doesn't recognize the congressional role in committing the United States to another war in the Persian Gulf. As James Madison wrote in 1798: "The constitution supposes, what the History of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. This our constitutional Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; Of course, Clinton also usurped congressional war powers, but he had to contend with more protest from GOP congressmen than Bush has. Another dangerous Bush policy justified by the war against terrorism is the gradual consolidation of police powers in Washington. Patriot Act, which expanded the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts and expanded federal wiretapping and surveillance authority. It has proposed more federal money for police and fire departments, which will lead to more control. And it has proposed, and is lobbying strongly for, a new Department of Homeland Security. One legitimate way to protect the homeland is to secure the borders. But Bush is moving in exactly the opposite direction by calling for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which, like the EU in Europe, is intended to become a regional government, allowing for unrestricted movement of North, Central, and South Americans across any national boundary in the New World -- includi...
|
http://csua.com/feed/