In Steps:
1.) Spend absolutely massive amounts of money on a number of programs, expanding spending leaps and bounds beyond your predecessor.
2.) Fund an extremely expensive and increasingly unpopular war that has, literally, no end in sight, and even if ended tomorrow, would continue to cost extraordinary amounts of money.
3.) Finally take a stand on spending, but choose to do so on an expansion of a popular Children’s Insurance Program that will be impossible to defend politically (especially since 6 of 10 Republicans on the finance committee voted for it) and do so in a way that makes sure it looks like you are trying to do something underhanded (like, for example, issue new rules).
4.) Watch as members of your own party, already terrified at their election prospects in 2008 due to the rank incompetence of your administration and sheer unpopularity of all your other decisions, race from your position, unable to explain why you chose this, of all programs, to take a stand.
5.) Enjoy yet another permanent expansion of the bloated United States budget.
The Bush Administration in a nutshell.
Xanthippas
You could just as easily add a line about watching right-wing blogs line up to defend this move against the instituting of “socialized medicine.”
RSA
The Bush administration in a slightly bigger nutshell:
3.5.) Take a stand on spending that includes strongly opposing a 3.5% pay raise for soldiers, calling anything above 3% “unnecessary”.
6.) Blame Congressional Democrats for their out-of-control spending.
Punchy
In slightly OT but related news….
This article just makes me so sad. Everything–no hyperbole this time–that Congress tries to look into is labeled “Executive privilege”. Even when the President isn’t involved! They then completely ignore their legal obligation to obey a subpeona, and claim they’ll only respond if Congress makes permanent the FISA changes. As if Congress must go quid pro quo
The Rule of Law is just broken. Period. Full stop.
carpeicthus
So, support for states rights doesn’t trump hatred of children? Under what angle does that play well?
rachel
Look, if those kids want health insurance, they’re going to have to work harder and get better jobs the same as anybody else. Why should my money go for giving these little bums get a free ride?
(I’m being sarcastic, but some people seem to think that.)
Jake
Great post John, if I may summarize:
Even I was a little surprised by this one since the GOP consistently pimps the kiddies to get their way. However, I take it as proof that the corporate raid of the U.S. treasury (with Bush handing out bags for the swag) will only increase until Jan. 20, 2009.
Aaaar! What’s in your wallet?
Bubblegum Tate
Yeah! I mean, that’s socialism, the only thing that could possibly be more evil than Zlammyfashzm. If we start taking care of our children, then we become a nation full of Stalins. Maybe that’s just The Left’s master plan, eh comrades?
grumpy realist
Go read Megan McArdle’s latest screed about how old people and “sick people” as a class haven’t taken care of their health and thus deserve whatever happens to them.
If anyone wants to know why no one ever votes for Libertarians, McArdle is a walking example. May she lose all health insurance and have to pay for all future health care out of her own pocket at full rates.
rachel
Linky?
Lupin
I’m surprised because Bush should know that babies taste fresher and juicier when they’re healthy.
magisterludi
Read the NYT piece on income inequality today? Required reading. At least, it should be.
mrmobi
But only after they’ve been properly cooked.
whippoorwill
This kind of stupidity would make for good chuckle, if the consequences were not so dire. The ideological fear of government subsidized healthcare by the right should be fought on the political battlefield with adult americans. They can to one degree or another fend for themselves. But children cannot. A civilized society should make access to health for children ironclad. They should not be subjected to delay or paperwork or greedy HMO’s . Nor should be caught in a political contest.
Incertus (Brian)
Linky?
Here you go.
rachel
And most important of all, they didn’t die young. Jesus wept.
Dreggas
Well No shit sherlock.
What the working class hasn’t realized yet is that the GOP will happily take their tax money but cut taxes on the rich because they are somehow overtaxed. They’ll make sure to do things that favor the corporations and rich in order to make them richer.
People talk about the dems and “class warfare” the republicants don’t believe in class warfare they just wage wars on the other classes all the while protecting themselves.
Their campaign slogans should just state it clearly “Let them eat cake”.
Jake
True, the only question is will the working class do shit about it or will they continue to believe the GOP is their best friend? I must confess to a limited amount of sympathy for people who complain about being laid off, rising health care costs, rising gas prices, the general rotteness over everything in one breath and shout TRAITOR at people who disagree with Bush’s policies in the next.
I can’t tell if these folks don’t know where that sharp pounding pain in their ass is coming from, they actually like the pain, or they consider the pain a small price to pay for continued vows to protect zygotes and marriage from the Libruls.
Or maybe it’s ‘cos the GOP keeps promising to respect them in the morning.
Dreggas
Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.
rawshark
point out that that is fascism and watch them freak out.
Alan
Speaking of Republican Stupidity, have you heard this Simpsons’ audio clip of Sideshow Bob? It succinctly, yet ironically, encompasses everything that’s wrong with the GOP–including how conservative pundits lead the party astray. The right has come a long way since ’95 when that episode debuted.
The Other Andrew
Has someone already coined the phrase “Credit Card Conservative”? Buy now, make your children pay later!
I’m no wonk, but I seem to recall seeing a pie chart that showed that the vast majority of spending consists of military matters and the social safety net. I don’t see either of those things either being significantly reduced, the Iraq fiasco notwithstanding, so I hereby proclaim that the concept of “small government” is officially obsolete. It’s probably been obsolete for quite a while, though. I’m sure that the right will continue to pay lip service to it, but we’ll never see a takeover by actual “small government” conservatives, as too many have too much to lose. Bush may have been a step towards a more socialistic America, ironically, as he proudly gave the right a taste of what big government could do for them. Sure, Reagan did roughly the same thing, but Bush was less ashamed about it. And shame is what this is all about. Once the country gets over the often self-destructive pride that prevents it from openly accepting help from the government, it’s all over for the vaguely-anarchistic libertarians on the right. You win on individual liberty, you lose on governmental power. Sorry, guys.
If some semi-sane moderates did somehow take over the GOP, I’d tell them to push for “smaller government.” The big government genie is out of the bottle for both parties–which is fine with me–and there’s no going back. Now it’s just a matter of improving effectiveness and limiting corruption.
Pb
The Other Andrew,
Howard Dean, 10/01/03:
The Other Andrew
…well, if you’re going to subconsciously plagarize, might as well do it from the best. My bad.
Pelikan
Speaking of John (or Jane) Galt. Has anyone else picked up Bioshock? Shooting Libertarian Mutants is turning out to be even more fun than I had suspected.