George W. Bush

Enough With The Political Dynasties

Chelsea Clinton

Our country declared its independence from a monarch and an aristocracy. We were founded on the promise that any American, of any background could theoretically be elected President or any other political office. Instead we’re slowing starting the see the rise of the House of Clinton political dynasty with Chelsea Clinton now thinking about getting into politics.

Despite her famed political lineage, Chelsea Clinton has adamantly refused stepping into the political arena. Now, however, Clinton’s answer on her political ambitions is less definitive.

Asked if she would consider jumping into politics, Clinton – daughter of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton – is now saying, “I don’t know.”

“Before my mom’s campaign I would have said no. Not because it was something I had thought a lot about but because people have been asking me that my whole life,” Clinton, speaking of her mother’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid, said in an interview for the September issue of Vogue.

“And now I don’t know… . I mean, I have voted in every election that I have been qualified to vote in since I turned eighteen,” Clinton continued.

Americans for Prosperity launches new ad knocking Obama on deficits

Americans for Prosperity

The budget deficit for the current fiscal year is expected to hit $1 trillion any day now and the increasing national debt exponentially in the last four years. And while some apologists for Obama insist that he has been fiscally responsible, the claim simply doesn’t hold water.

Back in 2008, then-Sen. Obama lashed out at the budget busting deficits of President Bush, calling it “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” During his first campaign, Obama said that he would deliver a “net-spending cut” during his first term in office. But a new ad from Americans for Prosperity should remind voters of these broken promises and the fiscal turmoil that President Obama only exacerbated:

Elton John Loves Conservatives but Hates Their Kids

Elton John

Does Elton John Hate the kids of conservatives? If he praises the actions of “compassionate conservatives” then I think he does.

‘We’ve seen George W. Bush and conservative American politicians pledge tens of billions to save the lives of Africans with HIV. Think of all the love. Think of where we’d be without it, nowhere, that’s where. We’d be nowhere  at all,’ John said at the International AIDS conference in Washington on Monday.”

I like Elton John. I want him and everyone else to be able to marry whomever they want. I want him to be free to write more great hits like “Sad Songs”  and “Tiny Dancer.”  I’m a fan. But what I am not a fan of is his collectivist Ideas of praising “compassionate conservatives” for using the force of government to steal property from some, in order to give it to others. More government always leads to less freedom, for Elton John, for individuals in America and around the world.

Elton exclaims “think of all the love” that the actions of the conservative politicians produced, but is taxation and redistribution an act of love?

When property is stolen from “taxpayers” in the form of taxes, they suffer and so do their children. Having children at all for the productive class is an economic decision and taxation and inflation are key drivers in that decision. In effect when government steals money from a mother and father they are being deprived by force of their resources, which they can spend on their offspring which in effective limits how many children they have. This reduces the “Love” an individual can show to themselves, their living children and the children they choose not to have due to economic reasons.

Is the Farm Bill in trouble?

Every few years the Congress takes up the Farm Bill, a relic of the New Deal that subsidizes and other taxpayer-funded giveaways for agriculture industry. The most recent legislation — the $604 billion, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act — was passed in 2008, though it was rejected by then-President George W. Bush; though Congress subsequently overrode the veto. The problems with the bill was that it spent far too much, subsidized millionaires, and cost Americans, not just in taxes and wasteful spending, but also through higher grocery bills.

The time has come for Congress to once again shell out billions in taxpayer dollars, but the $969 billion — seriously, it’s that expensive now — legislation may be put at risk due to a disagreement between party leaders on amendments that can be offered:

Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and ranking member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) were scrambling Tuesday to save the $969 billion farm bill from failing on the Senate floor.

More than 100 amendments have been filed to the bill and more continue to pour in. Getting the farm bill to a final vote will require some agreement between Democrats and Republicans on a list of final amendments.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants to eliminate “non-germane” amendments but his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is arguing that the must-pass legislation is a prime opportunity to enact a GOP priority wish list of anti-regulation legislation.

Andrew Sullivan: Tea Party opposes Obama because he’s black

Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan, a conservative turned liberal, wrote a post criticising the Tea Party movement for standing by while George W. Bush broke the bank only to protest Barack Obama for his spending measures. According to Sullivan, this isn’t based on disagreement with Obama for his big spending ways, rather the fact that he is black:

[T[he Tea Party, utterly indifferent to massive spending in good times by a Republican, had a conniption at a black Democrat’s modest measures to limit the worst downturn since the 1930s. Conniption isn’t really he right word: this was a cultural and political panic in the face of a president who was advocating what were only recently Republican policies: tax cuts, Romneycare on a national level, cap-and-trade, a W-style immigration reform, and a relentless war on Jihadism. They reached back to a time, when there were only three kinds of Americans - native, white and slaves. They even wore powdered wigs.

While I don’t necessarily disagree that conservative opposition to immigration reform is based on more than public policy, I completely disagree that the Tea Party movement opposes Obama’s policies just because he is black.

I don’t disagree that Bush was a fiscal nightmare, and it’s my belief that he set the Republican Party back several years. And shortly after the Tea Party movement started in early 2009, I criticized them for not calling out Bush’s spending spree.

Taxpayers to foot hefty bills for former presidents

We all know that President George W. Bush was a fiscal nightmare, largely laying the groundwork for his successor. Veronique de Rugy noted in her analysis on spending under Bush, that domestic spending alone went up by more than 20% in his first term. He expanded Medicare and expanded the bloated federal bureaucracy.

And even though he’s not in office anymore, The Daily Caller notes that Bush is still a burden to taxpayers thanks to a free ride for expenses given to former presidents:

Former President George W. Bush is budgeted to receive the most money from taxpayers of all the living ex-presidents.

Bush, the most recent former president, is requesting more than $1.3 million in taxpayer dollars for fiscal year 2013, according to a budget proposal document prepared by the General Services Administration.

Among expenses, the GSA budget document says the younger Bush is requesting $85,000 for phone costs. Hannah Abney, a spokeswoman for Bush, declined to comment on that when reached by The Daily Caller on Tuesday.

This is something from which all living presidents benefit. For example, Clinton has been budget just over $1 million; so just picking on Bush isn’t fair, but at the same time it’s hard not to equate this sort of spending with pork projects for companies already turning a profit.

Wayne Root sells out Gary Johnson

Wayne Allyn Root, who served as Bob Barr’s running mate on the Libertarian Party’s Presidential ticket in 2008 and now sits as a member of the Libertarian National Committee, raised more than a few eyebrows late last week when he essentially said on Bill Cunningham’s radio show (podcast here) that he’s supporting Mitt Romney for President this year instead of the nominee of the party he purports to represent:

I think the important thing now is to make sure Obama is not elected,and that means in my mind, I would love for a libertarian like Gary Johnson the two term governor of New Mexico would actually get elected President, but I think we all know that’s not going to happen so therefore it’s got to be Romney there is no choice.

Let’s leave aside the merts of Root’s argument for the moment. It is possible that someone who considers themselves a libertarian might decide in November that it is more important to keep Barack Obama from winning re-election by voting for the candidate most likely to beat him, even if that person is far from being a libertarian and isn’t likely to govern in a way very much different from George W. Bush. I happen to disagree with that conclusion, but I can understand why someone might beleive it, and that’s their right.

But Root isn’t just some libertarian off the streets. He ran for the party’s nomination in 2008, ran as Vice-President that year, and has said on more than one occassion that he intends to run for President against in the future, although apparently not in 2008. And he holds office on the party’s National Committee. It’s the equivalent of a member of the RNC saying that Republicans may as well just vote for President Obama in November.

Obama racks up more debt than Bush

During George W. Bush’s presidency, Democrats often complained that deficits were too high and that the national debt was growing out of control. Even Barack Obama, then a Senator from Illinois complained of the growing deficit. During a debate over raising the debt ceiling in 2008, Obama slammed Bush, calling the deficits under Bush “unpatriotic”:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

There is no denying that Bush was a big spender, not just on defense, but also domestic programs. However, Obama’s preaching hasn’t translated into any action. And now, just in his first term, the national debt has increased more than under Obama the full eight years of Bush, as CBS News notes:

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Mitt Romney’s American Delusion

Republican voters are being put through the pincers. We are back to 2008. Heaps of strong candidates, but no consensus. Great speeches, but no substance. PAC money spent by the millions, but no conclusive results. GOP candidates are even welcoming Democratic voters, to smear each other, to add to their victories, or to just plainly embitter each other. The Republican race is not going to get any more civil. Once, we see these subterfuges, we can ask the real questions: what will it take to unseat Obama in November, and who can best do this?

In America the conservative movement has been changing. Neo-conservatives, who had for roughly two decades (1980-2000) held the strongarm of the party, are gone with the Bush Administration’s doctrine of “pre-emptive strike” and the PATRIOT ACT. We are in the midst of the dregs. Still trying to find out which direction this country will spill it’s spirit of changelessness.

For all his grandeur, Mitt Romney just has not taken his campaign to the next level. Rick Santorum has peaked, but more likely will not hold his miniscule leads. Newt Gingrinch’s populism and Ron Paul’s constitutionalism, so similar to each other, are self-negating. None is in charge. Marginal candidates can’t win delegates, nor the RNC party’s nomination. Mitt Romney, the ever-chameleon like business mogul, can’t strike a human touch to save his life and political prospects.

If Mitt Romney is the front runner of the wolves, ready to flay Obama; what is his version of the American Dream? How does he see this country, through which prism? Is it a legalistic, rigidly technocratic, institutional approach? It seems, his advantage is not his base, his character, anything as much as his warchest. He won’t run out of steam. Even if the delegate count gets close in Tampa, FL this spring; he’ll be able to resurrect himself, make the necessary promises and sail away with the nomination.

Former Congresswoman: Gingrich lobbied for Medicare expansion

Among my frequent criticisms of Newt Gingrich was his support of Medicare Part D, which was passed in 2003 with the support of President George W. Bush. Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs, is expansion of an already troubled government-run insurance program that has been estimated to add anywhere between $7 trillion to $9.4 trillion in unfunded liabilties.

Keep in mind that Medicare and Social Security together represent some $61 trillion in unfunded liabilties. So the last thing we should be doing is adding to that. Yet, that’s exactly what Newt Gingrich did when the bill was before the House, according to former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO):

Former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, now a director at the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, said Gingrich called her at the height of the 2003 debate urging her to vote for the bill.

“Newt called me to vote yes,” Musgrave told CNN by phone on Wednesday.

“He asked for a yes vote on a Medicare prescription drug benefit,” she said. “Dick Armey” – former House Majority Leader – “called me and wanted a no. But I had already made up my mind to vote not to expand an entitlement that we were going to have to pay for down the road.”

Musgrave was one of 19 House Republicans who voted against the plan, which passed 220-215.

Two more Republicans who served in Congress at the time, Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake and Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, told the Des Moines Register this week that Gingrich lobbied them to vote in favor of the Medicare provision.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.