Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

[slugshooter]

The great Republican role-reversal gambit

By Howard Fineman

MSNBC contributor

Updated: 1:11 p.m. ET March 16,2005

WASHINGTON - Here’s a quick quiz on political labels for you junkies out there. Of the two major political parties, which one is spending money like water, creating new welfare entitlements, rapidly expanding the power of the federal government and launching idealistic wars of liberation around the globe?

For 60 years – from the dawn of the New Deal in 1933 to the advent of Hillary Healthcare in 1993 – the answer was the Democratic Party. But 1993 also was the year George W. Bush launched his national career (by running for governor of Texas). Now, 12 years later, we see the result: the Republicans are the party of deficit spending, entitlement expansion, Washington aggrandizement and Wilsonian crusades. They are presiding over the most vigorous enlargement of federal power and military involvement abroad since Lyndon Johnson unfurled the Great Society and plunged headlong into Vietnam.

Maybe there’s a big-government growth hormone in the artesian wells of Texas. Or maybe, as the writer Flannery O’Connor said, everything that rises must converge: meaning that every American governing party ultimately operates the same way to amplify its own political reach.

The corollary is that every party in eclipse operates the same way, too: crying havoc about deficits, threatening to shove sticks into the spinning spokes of government, waving the flag of states rights and attacking the ethics of leaders on the other side. That’s what Newt Gingrich’s GOP did when Bill Clinton was in power – and that is what Democrats are doing now. It didn’t really work for the GOP in the ‘90s, and I’m not sure it is going to work for the Democrats now because, to oversimplify only slightly, the GOP may not be conservatives anymore, but Democrats have lost their identity altogether.

Now for what we used to call the “to be sure” paragraphs. To be sure, some of the recent expansion of government is the unavoidable result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush didn’t campaign in 2000 on a Patriot Act; he initially resisted creation of a Department of Homeland Security, which was a Democratic idea.

And, to be sure, Bush is dedicating 2005 to something old-fashioned, small-government conservative love: a frontal attack on the biggest governmental edifice of the New Deal, Social Security. But that may well be one reason why he’s doing it: to assuage conservative purists, not because he expects to get it done. (Campaigning for Social Security “reform” has other political benefits, such as forcing the Democrats to defend their home turf, and distracting attention from the country’s immediate, and more urgent, balance-sheet problems.)

But step back for a minute and consider the breathtaking scope of what Bush and his ruling party have wrought. The Leave No Child Behind Act is a bold assertion of federal power in what had (except for racial matters) been one of the last domains of local control, elementary and secondary education. The president’s recently enacted “tort reform,” a pet item of his for years, in essence preempts state courts from acting on many civil law suits, forcing them to be tried in federal courts. His energy proposals, yet to be enacted, do essentially the same thing, preempting the authority of state utility commissions. The Patriot Act, which Bush wants to expand, drains away much of the independent power of local and state police in the name of national coordination.

To take a campaign issue off the table in 2003, the president agreed to a create a costly new welfare entitlement – a prescription-drug benefit – that is going to cost, by conservative estimates, at least twice as much as originally thought.

And now the government is expanding its role in the “news” business, doubling the amount even the often cynically manipulative Clinton Administration spent on video press releases and such. Talk about Big Government! If there is a cloakroom in Heaven, Senators Barry Goldwater and John C. Calhoun are livid that anyone is defending propaganda in the name of conservatism.

Even Bush’s Social Security reform proposal has an expansion of the role of Big Government buried within it. Under the plan, citizens would funnel portions of their payroll tax money into private accounts, which, in turn, would be managed en masse by private brokerage firms contracting with the government. What it really means is that Washington, already the main player in the bond market, will become a main conduit of cash into Wall Street – and where the money goes, more direct control is sure to follow. Think of the SEC on steroids. (By the way, brokerage firms are said to be wary of bidding on such contracts because profit margins would be too thin. Who are we kidding? Since when do federal contractors settle for unacceptable profit margins?)

As for the various deficits and debts – fiscal and trade, annual and total – the dismal numbers are familiar enough, with tides of red ink rising all around.

When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan arrived on the Hill the other day, he was greeted by the new face of the Democratic Party: deficit hawk Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York Senator made her policy-making debut in 1993 as the prime mover of one of the biggest Big Government proposals on record – Hillary Healthcare. Now she’s obsessed with the shrinking the federal deficit. So, too, are some of the party’s most creative, grassroots-oriented leaders. One of them is Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who is making a crusade of his “pay-go” proposal, which would require Congress to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for any new program or tax cut it enacts. Not a bad idea – and one a conservative Republican might have been championing years ago.

The Democrats are delving into the Gingrich tactical playbook – and I’m not sure what they find is going to help them. Gingrich was obsessed with nailing House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas; Democrats are focused on Majority Leader Tom DeLay – of Texas. (What is it about Texas?!) But Wright’s ethical troubles weren’t the proximate cause of the Democrats loss of the House in 1994; President Clinton’s first term mistakes were.

And now the Democrats are threatening to shut down the government, or at least the Senate, if the GOP tries to jam judicial nominations through by overriding the filibuster rule. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid vows that the Senate will conduct no business. That’s an echo of the obstructionism Speaker Gingrich threw at Clinton in 1995 – which made the president look like a statesman by comparison, and all but insured Clinton’s re-election.

[Ravin R10 man]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

As usual , your liberal view yet again, and coming from an MSN source?? Really, slug!

[slugshooter]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

What, is there anything in there that isn't true. If so, let me know so I can tell you you are just being partisan. Some of you on here are so partisan that you can't see past the end of the hatred on your noses. I fail to see how this is anything but a non-partisan look at both sides. Maybe you didn't read it all.

[Ravin R10 man]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

By Howard Fineman

MSNBC contributor

and some are so liberal biased, they dont even realize it!

[slugshooter]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

What would have been your perception of the article had I cut and pasted from Foxnews.com. Probably different.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

I too have reservations about the excessive spending, especially for social welfare programs. But I think there are 2 factors at work here that may make it all worthwhile in the long run.

First, President Bush has a short term strategy to take the traditional Democrat campaign issues away from them by increasing spending in those areas.

Second, he's setting the Democrat Party up for a HUGE long term collapse by forcing them to actively oppose his (which used to be their) agenda, which of course they're definitely going to do, if for no other reason than out of relflex. That very opposition is what will ultimately alienate the moderates and a portion of the Democrat base.

[carbonhunter]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

[ QUOTE ]

I too have reservations about the excessive spending, especially for social welfare programs. But I think there are 2 factors at work here that may make it all worthwhile in the long run.

First, President Bush has a short term strategy to take the traditional Democrat campaign issues away from them by increasing spending in those areas.

Second, he's setting the Democrat Party up for a HUGE long term collapse by forcing them to actively oppose his (which used to be their) agenda, which of course they're definitely going to do, if for no other reason than out of relflex. That very opposition is what will ultimately alienate the moderates and a portion of the Democrat base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Soooooo we elected bush to play a game?

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

I don't think he's playing at all. I think he intends to permanently crush (or at least severly cripple for many many years) the Democrat Party.

[carbonhunter]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's playing at all. I think he intends to permanently crush (or at least severly cripple for many many years) the Democrat Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice thats where i wanted you to take this texan....let me say this first, i could care less what he does to the Dem. party. But is this something that we want the president putting effort into???

I know some will just say yes, but i think the party's are a good thing, they both change as time goes ( and this article proves) but i think healthy competition is a good thing and a core reason our country is what it is.

Does crushing the democratic party help us as a whole??

because thats what I thought the president was supposed to focus on.

and to be honest if that is really what he is doing it pisses me right off Id like to think i voted for more than that in november.

just curious to the thoughts on this.

[slugshooter]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, he's setting the Democrat Party up for a HUGE long term collapse by forcing them to actively oppose his (which used to be their) agenda,

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I am finally able to make a decision regarding my position on this whole Social Security, PRA issue. While the idea of SS needing to be reformed was first proposed by Clinton, the PRA's from what I understand are solely Bush. First off, the PRA's do nothing to address the solvency of Social Security, even with PRA's, SS will possibly go bankrupt at a certain point. I don't feel that the government is the best group to be setting up and running a PRA that deals with the stock market with the government basically being the middle man, the largest profits are going to still go to the government and the investment firms IMHO.

What needs to happen is legislation needs to be enacted that effectively removes the government from spending money in the SS account. There needs to stop being payments to illegal immigrants. I don't feel that a young widow or widower should be able to draw on their dead spouses SS unless they have a child under the age of 18 if that person is still young enough to hold a job and support themselves. This whole "screw em, do away with the whole system" is not I believe in the best interests of those who are currently drawing on Social Security.

I don't feel it is the governments job to institute a personal retirement account, whether voluntary or not, it should be left up to the individual and whatever investment firm he or she chooses. Social Security can be saved without PRA's, it will just take major reform on the part of the government which will most likely never happen. PRA's do nothing to reform Social Security, all it does is add to the bureucracy and red tape.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

Actually, the dea of moving SS into the private sector was originated by Franklin Roosevelt. I posted that here a couple of weeks ago.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

[ QUOTE ]

Nice thats where i wanted you to take this texan....let me say this first, i could care less what he does to the Dem. party. But is this something that we want the president putting effort into???

I know some will just say yes, but i think the party's are a good thing, they both change as time goes ( and this article proves) but i think healthy competition is a good thing and a core reason our country is what it is.

Does crushing the democratic party help us as a whole??

because thats what I thought the president was supposed to focus on.

and to be honest if that is really what he is doing it pisses me right off Id like to think i voted for more than that in november.

just curious to the thoughts on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm all for crushing liberalism, since I think its the root cause of most of the major problems this country faces today. As to ending the two party system, I'm certainly not in favor of that. What I would like to see is the reemergence of the Democrat Party of the 40's and 50's without the racism.

[Bruce Schmeck]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm all for crushing liberalism, since I think its the root cause of most of the major problems this country faces today. As to ending the two party system, I'm certainly not in favor of that. What I would like to see is the reemergence of the Democrat Party of the 40's and 50's without the racism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear! Hear! Liberalism and political correctness will be the downfall of our country unless things get turned around.

[Steven]

Re: Republican role reversal? Pretty good article.

The article just goes to show we live in a one-party nation- the rebublicrats. Both parties change everything they believe on an almost yearly basis just to keep up with their polling data and stay on top of "what America wants", which seems to be different to everybody you talk to.

It's impossible to tell who's who anymore.