Non-Biased Article, The Real Washington

[Dr. Chris]

In the 1990s, many Republicans tried to revive the emphasis on spending reform that had been an early focus of President Reagan. For example, Reagan fought to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy. In May 1995, the House approved a budget plan calling for the elimination of the departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy. At the time, the House determined that each of these departments was wasteful, ineffective, and unconstitutional. Indeed, the GOP presidential platform in 1996 stated: "The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula ... this is why we will abolish the Department of Education."

It's true that many of the budget cuts of Reagan and of the GOP in the mid-1990s did not last very long. But at least they were pushing in the right direction. By contrast, President Bush sought large spending increases for the Department of Education, for example. Education outlays increased from $36 billion to $61 billion in Bush’s first three years.
A sharp contrast is evident when comparing Reagan and Bush on spending. While both boosted defense outlays during their first three years in office, Reagan offset that increase with a 13 percent cut in real discretionary non-defense spending. By contrast, Bush increased non-defense spending by more than 20 percent in real terms.

Reagan was not able to follow through on many of his cuts because of solid opposition by the Democratic House. In the 1990s, President Clinton was an obstacle to many cuts, despite his conservative claims. Clinton was a big spender but he did it in a way that it “pleased” the people. I call it “foreplay spending”, because to the people it felt so good at the time you didn’t think about how it would affect your future. But for six years, Republicans had the White House and a majority in Congress and should have been moving ahead with these long-sought reforms. Bush and the Republicans should have finished the race Reagan started.

Instead, they moved in an anti-reform direction in many cases. For example, they have turned their back on past Republican efforts to reform agriculture subsidies. The farm bill signed into law by President Bush in 2002 represented a reversal of the Republican 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. The 1996 Act had sought to finally wean farmers off federal price supports and subsidies. But the new farm bill embraced price supports and boosted farm subsidies.

The culture of spending seems to have prevailed over the recent Republican Party. In his initial budget plan in 2001, President Bush noted: "For too long, politics in Washington has been divided between those who wanted Big Government without regard to cost and those who wanted Small Government without regard to need." Eight years later it was very clear that Bush had embraced Big Government without regard to cost.

The biggest problem in Washington? Identity! During the Civil War it was North -vs- South. {Blue -vs- Grey} At one time it may have been Republicans -vs- Democrats, but that time for the most part is gone. It may be present on paper, but now we have too many Politicians wearing blue coats with grey pants and grey coats with blue pants. Politicians are using the words “Republican” and “Democrat” as a label to what ever may be the quickest and easiest way into office. Neither represents the true identity of an individual, what they believe in or what they stand for.

McCain messed up on the bailout. As a candidate he insisted that he represented real leadership, opposed wasteful spending, and would shake up Washington. In the bailout debate, he offered no solutions, supported a bill that includes billions in wasteful spending, and took a half-hearted stance in support simply to go along with the flow. If McCain had stood with Sen. DeMint for free-market reforms, put the blame on government intervention, and challenged the Bush administration, we might be calling him Mr. President. McCain's calling Obama a socialist for his views on spreading the wealth {which was true} would have been far more effective had he not supported socialist plans himself - and his mortgage plan was every bit as socialist as Obama's tax proposals.

Reagan “won” his election. Even Bill Clinton “won” his election. Both the Bush's and Obama made their way to the White House by “default”. They were picked by the people simply because they were considered the lesser of the two evils that were running. Also, most Americans do not know who they can really trust, regardless of their Party ticket. Many of Bush’s mistakes were because of his unwillingness to learn from others and their mistakes and turning his back on “sound” advice from his peers, including his father. Obama will repeat Bush in certain “failure” if he attempts to be a “Ruler” opposed to being a leader. Just like Bush should have done, Obama must get away from the “buddy system”.

Looking ahead, Republicans need to rediscover the reforming spirit that they brought to Washington after the landmark 1994 congressional elections. On the other side, fiscally conservative Democrats should challenge the big spending Republicans, and work to cut unneeded defense and non-defense programs. To begin getting the budget under control, an immediate freeze should be imposed on discretionary spending. That should be followed by eliminations of low-priority domestic programs, cutting waste in the defense budget, and implementing reforms to the elderly entitlements to diffuse the fiscal time bomb that is waiting to explode on the coming generation of young taxpayers.

Washington could be turned around if the best “men” would step up to the plate, from both Parties. I believe if the “sifting” would begin in Washington today, there would be wheat and tares found in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. But it will be those men from both Parties that care more about the American people then they do about themselves or their Party, only they can turn America around.

[bluegrass]

I have absolutely no argument with that article whatsoever...it perfectly illustrates the need for true conservatives (which I dont believe Bush was) to run and govern as CONSERVATIVES.


Gotta wonder why YOU posted that one Dr Chris....must be the late time of day, maybe you were sleep copying???




Tony

[Rabbithoundjb]

Congratulation Dr. Chris, thats a bipartisan article and absolutely true.

[2500 HD]

I agree with that article

I don't agree with blaiming Bush for everything in the last 8 years, Congress put everything in front of him for him to sign

Our government need to take an article like this to use as a guide line of the next 4 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr. Chris]

I have absolutely no argument with that article whatsoever...it perfectly illustrates the need for true conservatives (which I dont believe Bush was) to run and govern as CONSERVATIVES.


Gotta wonder why YOU posted that one Dr Chris....must be the late time of day, maybe you were sleep copying???




Tony

lol Yes, I did copy this one. But I agree with it. It has been a long time since I read an article that was totally non-biased and didn't care to step on the toes of either party and was glad to tell it like it is. I am more coming to the conclusion that it is not about Parties at all, it is about individuals.

Hypothetically, if it were possible to give a 100 question-questionnaire to all the politicians in Washington and by their answers {what they really honestly deep down thought} to those questions determined if they were Republican or Democrat, I think we would see a lot of Party swapping. The blue coat & grey pants thing really was a good point. There has to be a better way than what we have now. I think most people want the best that both parties have to offer but they want to throw away the garbage that comes along with the parties. It seems neither party wants to give any options. The message I get from both parties is "vote for us because of what we are offering you, but you have to except the things you don't like that comes with the package deal". Surly in the times that we are living in, a leader or a Party can come to the surface and offer the best and only use the best men and turn things around, without all of this friends and family buddy system and making certain appointments and passing or not passing certain things for personal favors or capital gain. Where the American people come first.

And just because we “yap” at each other on here and disagree a lot, does not mean points don’t get made. Many of you on here have challenged many of the things I believe on many issues and made me think and research twice about several things, and I think I have done my fair share of questioning some of you. But that is a good thing. As long as it don’t get personal. I am sure that if we all met and attended a trial or a hunt and talked "dogs" we would all get along fine and would have a good time.

[2500 HD]

And just because we “yap” at each other on here and disagree a lot, does not mean points don’t get made. Many of you on here have challenged many of the things I believe on many issues and made me think and research twice about several things, and I think I have done my fair share of questioning some of you. But that is a good thing. As long as it don’t get personal. I am sure that if we all met and attended a trial or a hunt and talked "dogs" we would all get along fine and would have a good time.[/quote]


I have to agree with you again Dr. Chris, LOL LOL I like to debate, but like to have the facts straight. I tend to be more conservative, mainly because I haven't seen where the liberal idea's have thier benefited us. I personally don't favor any party, unless one of the parties force me too.