[Homestead] Bush second term
genegerue at ruralize.com
Sat Sep 4 12:37:56 EDT 2004
I had just finished reading Brooks when you sent this. I agree that he is
For the first time, I have printed out and am reading the 94-page
Republican Party Platform, using a lot of red comment ink as I go. In
addition to the expected gushing about the wonderfulness of Bush and his
cohorts, there are actually some ideas and figures that caused me pause. I
will report more later. One reason I am subjecting myself to this is I want
to see how much of what is in the official platform actually happens.
At 12:08 PM 9/4/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Here's a real optimist. A 180 degree reversal is possible for someone who
>cannot go for a third term and who has been harboring thoughts about
>leaving a legacy of some permanent value beneficial to the average citizen.
>Well, not 180 degrees, maybe about 100 degree change in direction.
>There will certainly be no Bush-directed change in environmental
>destruction, none in a rational energy policy, and nothing that would
>reduce healthcare costs by half in a Universal National Healthcare system
>as proven in every other major country.
>And getting through any of his reversed objectives through a
>GOP-controlled Congress would be like pushing a grand piano through a
>giant vat of glue.
>The New York Times
>September 4, 2004
>Bush's Second Term
>By DAVID BROOKS
>White House aides like to say that George W. Bush is a transformational
>president. That's an exaggeration, but if he's elected to a second term
>and acts on the words he uttered on Thursday night, he just might be.
>He's already gone a long way to transform the Republican Party. This was a
>party united by the idea that government is the problem, that it should be
>radically cut back. On Thursday night, Bush talked about government as a
>positive tool. "Government must take your side," he exclaimed.
>He went on to propose a sprawling domestic agenda. Many of his proposals
>are small or medium-sized, and media rebutters have complained that not
>all of them are new (which is a ridiculous way to measure a policy idea).
>But cumulatively, they really do amount to something.
>Bush proposes to build community health centers, expand AmeriCorps,
>increase the funds for Pell Grants, create job retraining accounts, offer
>tax credits for hybrid cars, help lower-income families get health savings
>accounts, dedicate $40 billion to wetlands preservation, and on and on and on.
>This is an activist posture. As Karen Hughes said on PBS on Thursday
>evening, "This is not the grinchy old 'Let's abolish the Department of
>Education or shut down the government' conservatism of the past."
>The biggest proposals, which could really make history, were only hinted
>at. But Bush understands the crucial reform challenge: "Many of our most
>fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker
>training - were created for a world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will
>transform these systems."
>In his speech, he redefined compassionate conservatism. The faith-based
>initiatives are now only a part of a much bolder whole. Bush declared that
>government should move energetically to help people get skills and to open
>opportunities. "Government should help people improve their lives, not run
>their lives," he said. That is the essence of the party's new governing
>The Bush agenda has been greeted with a wave of skepticism from my buddies
>in the press corps. How's he going to pay for all this? Why didn't he do
>more of this in his first term? Why was he so vague about the big things?
>Won't he sacrifice it all on the altar of tax cuts?
>But, of course, he's not going to tell us at the peak of the campaign
>season about painful spending decisions. He's not going to specify who is
>going to get gored by tax simplification. No competent candidate has ever
>done that, and none ever will. That doesn't make the policy ideas bogus.
>The fact is, it would be bizarre if a re-elected Bush didn't have a
>magnified domestic agenda. Periods of war are usually periods of domestic
>reform because war changes the scale of people's thinking. It injects a
>sense of urgency. You can see this evolution in the president's own thinking.
>When he ran in 2000, it sometimes seemed that he was running for governor
>in chief. But now he is thinking like a president, and his domestic
>notions are growing to match his foreign policy ones.
>Obviously, the administration will have to make some tough decisions.
>First, it will figure out which of the many proposals it wants to do
>first. The obvious thing is to do tax simplification first because fixing
>up the tax code lets you eliminate distortions in health competition,
>saving patterns and a bunch of other areas.
>Second, the White House will probably have to choose between reforming
>entitlements and making the tax cuts permanent because there isn't enough
>money to do both. This is an easy call. Sacrifice the tax cuts. If
>entitlement programs aren't reformed, we'll be looking at a lifetime of
>tax increases. Modernizing the welfare state is a much bigger deal than
>some three- or four-point cut in the top marginal tax rate.
>It should be said that I do have a voice in my head that says this is all
>a mirage - that all the reform ideas will be tossed aside for the sake of
>favors for the K Street crowd. But one can sense a tide in the affairs of
>Republicans who embrace this limited but energetic government philosophy
>are in the ascendant (look at the convention speakers). Many Republicans
>and Democrats are coalescing around these ideas (in truth, several of
>Bush's ideas are lifted from centrist Democrats). Besides, Bush may flesh
>out and promote this big agenda, if only to spite his media critics.
>Homestead list and subscription:
>Change your homestead list member options:
>View the archives at:
More information about the Homestead