How George W. Is Going To Stick It To The American Public
Vindication is sweet. But, it gets even better. George Bush has begun to make waves with his policies countering those who voted for him. It seems that the military is upset with Bush's proposed "examination" of defense spending. Ah, it feels so good. Those same people who voted for George Bush because they thought Al Gore would be hostile to defense lobbying are now understanding the man they voted for does not care one bit about their cause. He was supposed to bring back the heady days of Regan and Bush, infusing funds into defense spending. Suddenly it seems that Bush is not the man they thought he was going to be.
This makes me particularly proud because it is almost as if defense officials would hark for those days of Bill Clinton where they knew their funds were not going to be affected. Now, Mr. Bush has yet to declare his intentions for the coming years. As of today, this coming year's defense budget will be that of Mr. Clinton's $280 plus billion budget. There is talk of cuts in the nuclear arsenal, something not totally imprudent. Currently America has 7,000 nuclear warheads in its store. There is speculation that the number could be reduced to as low as 2,000, something hawks in the Pentagon would certainly be unsupportive of. Moreover, there are other programs on the verge of being cut. The Osprey aircraft (it is part helicopter, part VTOL- vertical take off and landing- aircraft) is about to be scrapped. Boeing will obviously be lobbying otherwise. In fact, just weeks ago, 60 Minutes did a piece on the Osprey, attesting to its danger and ineffectiveness. The GAO has done a study and recommended the program be cast into the dump bin of history, and those bureaucrats in Washington are beginning to realize that there are more enemies than liberal lobbying groups. Mr. Cheney did not support the Osprey program while Secretary of Defense under Mr. Bush's daddy, I wonder how he feels now that he is Vice-President (and de facto brain between those two)?
What is wrong with reducing defense spending or obligating funds to programs with substance? Well, I cannot say that there is anything wrong. Other than the fact my real job relies on government contracts, particularly defense contracts, I think it might bode well that the government cut taxes and use the savings from defense spending to offset tax revenue. There is nothing wrong with that other than Mr. Bush is turning his back on those who voted him into government- perhaps those who gave him that "decisive" victory in Florida.
It was assumed during the Florida fiasco last fall that military votes would overwhelmingly vote in Mr. Bush. Military votes would invariably go to the "hawk," the man who at the Republican National Convention claimed his undying devotion to military causes and increasing their funding. Those groups traditionally supportive of Republicans, or more aptly put, conservative parties, are now finding their man had deserted them. America's military establishment (which extends beyond the limited walls of Washington, the Pentagon, and into our manufacturing heartland with such multinational companies as General Motors, Boeing Aerospace, not to mention Rockwell and Lockheed) was pulling for Mr. Bush and his renewed enthusiasm in defense spending. We were going to utilize Cold War economics and have the government begin a manufacturing boost through increased defense spending (ironically that is Keynesian economics a man more socialist than anything else).
Oh well, it seems those who voted for Mr. Bush in that way are going to be wrong. He (or more aptly, his advisors because he has no ability to actually conjure a real thought) decided to abandon these groups for higher taxes. He is even thinking of cutting military spending (Mr. Gore ironically wanted to increase spending). My heart aches for those who are going to watch their pet projects get killed at the expense of an upper class and corporate tax break. The sympathy pours out to all those who felt that George really cared about the middle and lower classes (where ironically many of the military associated jobs would benefit). George and his "compassionate conservatism" care not for those who might want an infusion of funds into their wallets. The biggest farce will be when Bush's tax cut does get pushed through and those who voted for him on that basis derive no benefit at all.
So, in case you have not realized what is going on, it is that Bush is about to show you what he is truly made of America. Traditionally conservative leaning groups are going to realize that they voted for the wrong man. First to learn this will be the military (who if they voted for Gore, would have increased spending and more bureaucratic safety). Then will be those who think they will get a break in taxes. Bush is going to aid those at the top, and the rest will ironically feel the pinch of the coming recession. Do not forget about those economics. Instead of increasing spending, creating research and development, not to mention manufacturing jobs, Mr. Bush is going to allow these companies to cut work forces further, squeeze more cash out of the company, increase their bonuses, and reserve for him a seat on their boards in four years. In the meantime, our economy will take a nosedive (something which might be headed off were we to increase government spending in the military sector where manufacturing jobs are the mainstay of work). Those who were going to benefit from the coming tax cut will not have the money to actually stay in their tax brackets to benefit. Mr. Bush, the beginning of your tinkering of our country has begun. May god have mercy on our souls. Maybe we should bring back Bill? I will wait a year before proffering such a suggestion.
