Bush's
fiscal policy and why it is not really "fiscally conservative".
Jeff Wilder
OpEdNews.com
During
the second presidential debate, a seemingly Republican voter asked Bush a
question that Bush doubtlessly wishes hadn't been asked. A question that
calls into question Bush's "fiscal conservatism". The question
is as follows:
Matthew O'Brien: Mr. President, you have enjoyed a Republican majority
in the House and Senate for most of your presidency. In that time, you've
not vetoed a single spending bill. Excluding $120 billion spent in Iran
and -- I'm sorry, Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been $700 billion spent
and not paid for by taxes.
Please explain how the spending you have approved and not paid for is
better for the American people than the spending proposed by your
opponent.
In response to the above question Bush kinda tap-danced around the issue.
However, he did come very close to outright honesty when he made the
following statement:
And you're right, I haven't vetoed any spending bills, because we work
together.
Many supposedly "conservative" Republicans point to the tax cut
that Bush has put in as an example of his attempts to relieve the
financial burden on most Americans or something to that effect. But aside
from the fact that the cut Bush put in is miniscule, compared to the cut
put in by Reagan in 1981 (as well as compared to the fiscal policy of
Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik), the Bush tax refund system is
messed up for another reason.
Bush cuts the taxes by a very small percent. However, he does not push any
cuts in spending through Congress. So what happens is very simple: the tax
cuts turn into a form of what is commonly known as Indian giving. In other
words, the taxpayers get some of their money back. Yet it's a good bet
that some point down the line, you'll be paying back that exact amount
when your next tax bill comes.
In a May 2003 column Larry Elder observed that under Bush's direction the
federal government "increased the budget beyond that which is
necessary for the war on terror and the wars in Afghanistan and in
Iraq". Also, Bush spent <I>$60 Million</I> on his
re-election ad campaign as of last June. With the types of ads that have
appeared since then, expect that figure to be somewhat over $80 million by
now.
I was talking with my father's fiancée not too long ago and I made the
observations that contrary to what they claim, many Republicans are just
as big spenders as Democrats. No surprise there, that's a well-known fact.
She made the following observation that is even more accurate.
"Actually they're even bigger spenders. They have more money".
During the primary races in Florida, Republican candidate Doug Gallagher
proposed replacing the IRS with a flat tax. That was one of the central
parts of his campaign (along with his donation of funds for diabetes
research) and the thing that made him the only Republican candidate on the
ballot worth considering. Bush stepped into the ring and threw an
endorsement to one of the candidates? Which candidate? Gallagher? Nope.
His endorsement went to the Republican that beat Gallagher, Mel Martinez.
George W Bush a fiscal conservative? Tell that to the many weary Americans
still in need of tax relief who find themselves paying more taxes under
Bush than under Clinton. Then again, Bush has always had trouble with
words, so maybe we shouldn't be too hard. Recall this scene from
Fahrenheit 9/11.
Bush: This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. Some call
you the elite: I call you my base.
Sums it up perfectly.
Bio:
Jeff Wilder NOSPOL@aol.com is a
26 year old free-lance writer and journalist from Southeastern Florida. An
independent thinker who refuses to let himself get tied down to any one
religious or political ideology, Wilder has written articles for numerous
online sites and publications. He cites Mark Twain, HL Mencken, George
Orwell, Murray Kempton, Pete Hamill and Michael Kelly as influences.
Website: http://members.aol.com/NOSPOL
|
Enter
Your E-mail address to Receive OpEdNews
Newsletter