Does President Bush understand ownership?
Terence Jeffrey on President Bush and his "ownership society" language:
President Bush has become, quite rightly, an evangelist for the virtues of private property, speaking about an "ownership society" just about everywhere he goes. Just about everywhere, that is, except when he visits a government-owned school.
Then he is a big-government man.
Consider back-to-back speeches the president gave last week. On Jan. 11 in Washington, D.C., he promoted his excellent plan to create personally owned retirement accounts as a part of Social Security reform. The next day, at a public high school in suburban Virginia, he proposed new spending programs for the Department of Education's No Child Left Behind Act.
So writes Terence Jeffrey, and he's absolutely right. What boggles the mind, of course, is why he should be surprised. President Bush
is a big-government man, period. He wants more Americans to own their own homes -- and toward that end he promotes Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two of the most corrupt agencies in the federal government. He wants more Americans to own their "retirement accounts," he says -- as long as they do so under the umbrella of a new, "reformed" Social Security Administration. What he won't let you own is more of your own income, let alone such things as steroids, marijuana for your glaucoma, or
Thai shrimp.
But let's get back to Jeffrey's point:
"I love promoting ownership in America," Bush said in his Social Security speech. "I like the idea of encouraging more people to say 'I own my own home,' 'I own my own business,' 'I own and manage my health accounts,' and now 'I own a significant part of my retirement account.' Promoting ownership in America makes sense to me, to make sure people continue to have a vital stake in the future of our country."
But the next day at J.E.B. Stuart High School, the president did not say anything about encouraging parents to "own" their children's education. In fact, the word "ownership" did not cross his lips. The word "billion" did, however.
"Today," Bush said, "I propose a $1.5 billion initiative to help every high school student graduate with the skills necessary to succeed." Under the same proposal, states would be required to administer annual tests in reading and math to public school students in the ninth, 10th and 11th grades. (No Child Left Behind already requires math and reading tests for public school students in the third through eighth grades.)
I would correct Terrence Jeffrey on one thing: it's not just George Bush. It's not even both presidents bearing the name George Bush. Bear in mind the reason many Republicans and conservatives tend to give, election after election, for voting for their hideously lame, hypocritical, pro-Big Government candidates: "Well, he's better than the alternative. It's the lesser of two evils." And what's worse is that they manage, time after time, to make themselves believe it, often to the point of working up actual enthusiasm for their guy (I do not believe that most of the public enthusiasm for President Bush is faked).
Perhaps you remember this:
When "moderate" Bob Dole was the Republican presidential candidate in 1996, he ran on a platform calling for abolition of the federal Department of Education because the Constitution does not grant the federal government a role in primary and secondary education.
You should also remember that Newt Gingrich referred to Dole as the "tax collector for the welfare state," yet Dole had little problem securing his party's nomination that year. You'll also recall that sitting (Democratic) President Clinton had little trouble beating him.
It's easy to despise the Democrats: the socialism they stand for is truly despicable. But at least you know what they'll do or try to do once in office. Republican candidates often speak of "freedom," and "liberty," or "getting the government off the back of the American people." What we get from them are luxury taxes, Marines deployed to Beirut, free speech violations dressed as campaign finance "reform," destructive tariffs, and the No Child Left Behind Act.
You should also remind yourself that a certain Ronald Reagan spoke of abolishing the Department of Education during the 1980 campaign. This has been going on for a long time.
But back to Jeffrey: it's not just the federal government, but state and local levels of government too. He succinctly describes why America's public schools are in the shape they're in:
Even under Republican leadership, primary and secondary education in America has remained essentially a socialist enterprise: Government owns the major means of production.
Exactly.
Government needs to get out of education, out of providing loans for home ownership, and out of our shrimp.
Posted by Craig Ceely at January 21, 2005 12:20 PM