George W. Bush on Government Reform President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Other issues under Government Reform

OpEd: Doubled national debt & doubled size of government

Obama has proved far worse than Bush, no doubt, but this doesn't make Bush preferable, unless preference is dictated solely by party affiliation. If judgment is based on spending and the budget, then Bill Clinton should be considered preferable to Bush, given that he spent less money than his successor.

OpEd: Activist government for conservative ends

"The case for Bush's conservatism is strong. Sure, some conservatives are upset because he has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Bush isn't their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, he's a big government conservative. This isn't a description he or other prominent conservatives willingly embrace. It makes them sound as if they aren't conservatives at all. But they are. They simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means--activist government--for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

Barnes made clear that Bush's big government conservatism was a definite break from the traditional variety.

1990s: $750,000 punitive damage cap in Texas tort reform

One night early in the session, I got a phone call from Bullock. "Why are you blocking tort reform? " Bullock fired off a couple of f-bombs and hung up.

The main difference of opinion was on the size of the cap on punitive damages I wanted a $500,000 cap; Bullock wanted $1,000,000. If we could get agreement on this legislation, the other five tort bills that were part of the reform package would move quickly. An adviser suggested a compromise: How about a bill with a $750,000 threshold? No question that would improve the system.

We called Bullock. This call was shorter. "Governor Bush," Bullock started in his formal way, "You're going to be one helluva governor. Good night."

Draw House districts by panel of non-partisan elders

Our government would be more productive--and our politics more civilized--if congressional districts were drawn by panels of nonpartisan elders instead of partisan state legislatures. This would make for more competitive general elections and a less polarized Congress. Making the change would require politicians to give up some of their power, never an easy task. But for future presidents looking to tackle a big problem, this would be a worthy one to take on.

OpEd: Regulatory appointees protected their industries

That's what happened when Bush put Edwin Foulke, a lawyer with a long history of open hostility to health & safety regulations, in charge of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the agency meant to oversee workplace safety. Earlier in his career, Foulke led a successful effort to weaken OSHA's enforcement power.

Then there was Bush's choice of Mary Sheila Gall to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission, despite her tendency to blame consumers rather than manufacturers when defective products injured or killed. Thankfully, the Senate refused to confirm Gall.

If you want someone to tinker with the system, that's not me

He took a swipe at Richards: "Our leaders should be judged by results, not by entertaining personalities or clever sound bites." Richards cited rising SAT scores, a lower dropout rate, & 350,000 new jobs during her tenure. This didn't jibe with voters' growing concern about the quality of public schools, increasingly violent juvenile crime, and uneven economic progress. It also made it clear she was running on the past, not her vision for the future. That mind-set is always dangerous, but especially so in a rapidly growing state like Texas, where officeholders must introduce themselves to a lot of new people every few years.

Bush worked to establish his dominance on his four issues: education reform education, juvenile justice, welfare, and tort laws.

Roberts nomination:attorney/client privilege limits evidence

Declined Congressional subpoena for White House advisers

More signing statements than all other presidents combined

Bill Clinton issued signing statements covering 140 laws over eight years, as compared with his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, who objected to 232 laws over four years. George W. Bush, by contrast, has issued more signing statements than all o his predecessors combined--challenging the constitutionality of more than 1,000 laws during his first 6 years in office.

The difference between the practice of Clinton & that of George W. Bush is not simply one of volume--though that alone is striking. Bush's signing statements rest on his theory of his own power is so vast that, in practice, it amounts to an assertion of power that is obviously unconstitutional--a power to simply declare what provisions of law he will and will not comply with.

Trust in government is undermined by congressional earmarks

The people’s trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks--special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met.

So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number & cost of earmarks in half, I’ll send it back to you with my veto. And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress.

FactCheck: Earmark veto threat takes no effect until 2009

By earmarks that are “not voted on by Congress,” Bush means provisions that are specified in committee reports but are never part of the text of a bill. The vast majority of earmarks are of this type, so Bush is threatening to ignore or veto a fairly significant percentage of potential earmarks. But he’s not going to do it until fiscal year 2009. By not including the 2008 spending bills, the Executive Order gives Congress months to finagle their way around these changes.

Expose every earmark to a vote; cut earmarks in half by 2008

Congress should pass the line-item veto

Pass medical liability reform this year

OpEd: Not interested in bringing best people to government

I'm not being facetious. Think about it: If you believe, as conservatives do, that the private sector is more important than the public; that government should take less, do less, decide less; that it is full of inefficient people who want to take your money but don't know how to spend it, whose only approach to problem-solving is to throw money at problems and at unions, and to waste and abuse their big budgets (except for the military)--if you believe all this, then why would you want to fill it with all your best people?

FactCheck: Kerry authored 7 bills, not 5 that Bush claims

• S.791: $53 million for grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
• S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after a Medal of Honor winner. (1994)
• S.1636: To reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing (1994)
• S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program (1991)
• S.423: Granting a visa to a refugee. (1987)
  
  The Bush campaign left out two bills authored by Kerry:
• H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a national day of recognition to Jackie Robinson (2003)
• H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 (2001)

2001: Blocked release of father's presidential documents

Until then, the National Archives had controlled the fate of White House documents, which automatically became public after 12 years. Under Bush's new rules, presidents now have the right to prevent the public from ever viewing their papers, even after they have died. Unless there is a successful court challenge to Bush's executive order, he will be able to bury the secrets of his father's direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal as well as his own complicity in waging war on Iraq.

In the past, the Bush family has managed to protect itself by providing limited access to a select few journalists. Now that the risks of exposure are far greater, and the former President is more vigilant than ever.

Model justices: Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia

Loves government, but keep it restricted

But Bush is also the anti-Reagan. Ronald Reagan railed against government in theory but loved it in fact. His budgets proposed virtually no reductions in spending. Bush, in contrast, can’t stop talking about his love of government. He speaks fondly of its role in education, housing, health care and Social Security. But while praising government in theory, he wants to restrain it in fact. His budget requires that government spending-outside of Social Security and Medicare-rise by no more than 4%. (It rose by almost 9% last year.) Most cabinet agencies would see their budgets actually fall.

Big government cannot be compassionate

Regulatory style: like Reagan, get government out of the way

Bush, a frequent critic of heavy-handedness in government, would take a less-is-better stance through his appointees, stressing flexibility and voluntary actions by industry and the states. Gore, while touting the importance of a “smaller, smarter government,“ would push for more muscular regulation.

Critics worry that each man, in his own way, would go too far. Bush’s ”notion that government should get out of the way is the Ronald Reagan mantra,“ says one analyst, referring to Reagan’s aggressively antiregulatory stance. For his part, Gore ”shows an instinct to intervene in the marketplace,“ says another economist, who insists such intervention only makes problems worse.

We believe in people; they believe in government

If you’re sick and tired of Washington, D.C., the attitude, the finger-pointing, the name calling, if you want a fresh start after this season of cynicism, join this campaign.

Make govt citizen-centered, results-oriented & market-based

I have set forth policies that capture my vision of government reform. They are guided by three principles: government should be citizen-centered, results-oriented, and, wherever possible, market-based.
1. The idea here is to clear away the layers between the citizen and the decision-maker. I will expand the use of the Internet to empower citizens.
2. Second, government should be guided not by process but guided by performance. Under my proposal, over the next five years, a majority of the service contracts offered throughout the federal government will be performance-based. With a system of rewards and accountability, we can promote a culture of achievement throughout the federal government.
3. Finally, government should be market-based - we should not be afraid of competition, innovation, and choice. What matters in the end is not just making promises, but making good on promises.

Restore cooperation with Congress, to accomplish more

Pay for tax cuts with cash, not corporate loopholes

BUSH: If I’m the president and you’re a Senator, you can come in my office and you can outline all the different corporate loopholes you think are wrong. And we can pick and choose. But what I’m doing, John, is I’m selling my tax cut plan without claiming I’m going to close some kind of corporate loophole. Your plan uses so-called corporate loopholes to pay for it. I used cash to pay for it. And if the money stays in Washington -- my problem with your plan is that it’s going to be spent on bigger government.

Meet basic priorities, & return leftovers to taxpayers

No legislating from the bench-judges should just interpret

BAUER: President Bush made a colossal mistake by putting a justice on the court that is a reliable vote for Clinton. We can never afford to make another mistake like that.

BUSH: I’m the only one on the stage who’s appointed judges. And my judges strictly interpret the Constitution. And that’s what I hope all of us would do. The bench [is not a] place from which to legislate. My dad can defend himself.

1978: Opposed term limits for Congress, in Congress race

Cited 10th Amendment in TX inauguration

Local citizens, he said, should have a greater say. "By trusting Texans, the state is more likely to focus on its principle responsibilities: good and safe streets, excellent schools, help for those who cannot help themselves, and respect for private property."

The governor said he recognized that by giving greater freedom from government to individuals, "we run the risk that sometimes, some of them will fail. But mistakes made closest to the people are those most easily corrected."

Forge good public policy by leaders discussing privately

During the legislative session, every Wednesday morning Bush, Bullock, and Laney would breakfast together.

"We disagree, but you'll never read about it," the governor said of his meetings with the 2 lawmakers. "The way to forge good public policy amongst the leadership of the legislative branch and executive branch is to air our differences in private meetings that happen all the time," Bush explained. "The way to ruin a relationship is to leak things and to be disrespectful of meeting in private."

Term limits for state representatives and governors

Reform the court system to serve people, not lawyers

Favors Tort Reform to make it harder to sue corporations

No lawsuits on good-faith acts

Bush’s 1999 legislative record included:
• Enacted Y2K Lawsuit Protections: First state to enact limited legal liability for companies that make good faith efforts to address Y2K problems.
• Passed a Good Samaritan Law: Protects from legal liability voluntary health providers who provide medical care through non-profit organizations.

2004: Called for end to all independent group ads

By now, Bush could not dodge the controversy and, on Aug. 23, he responded to a reporter's question by calling for an end to all ads by independent groups. Democrats refused. The "Swifties" also dismissed the president's call, saying they would keep running ads. They ran seven new ones before the end of the campaign, spending about $19 million. They were easily the most effective independent ads of 2004.

Of course, I was blamed for Swift Board ads. I had no role in any of it, though the Swifties did a damned good job.

Private soft money OK, with full & prompt disclosure

Bush’s Reform Principles
• Protect Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy: by: 1) updating the limits on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy.
• Maintain Strong Political Parties
• Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money
• Eliminate Involuntary Contributions: by 1) legislation to prohibit corporations from using treasury funds for political activity without the permission of shareholders; and 2) legislation to require unions to obtain authorization from each dues-paying worker before spending those dues on activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
• Require Full and Prompt Disclosure
• Promote Fair, Balanced, Constitutional Approach: Reform should not favor any one party over another or incumbents over challengers.
• Include a non-severability provision, so if any provision of the bill is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is sent back to Congress for further adjustments.

Ban soft money, but no public financing of elections

BUSH: I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of a campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue. I would support an effort to ban corporate soft money & labor union soft money. I believe there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who’s given to whom.

GORE: You have attacked my character and credibility and I am not going to respond in kind. One serious problem is that our system of government is being undermined by too much influence coming from special interest money.

BUSH: I want people to hear what he just said. He is for full public financing of congressional elections. I’m absolutely, adamantly opposed to that.

Ban some soft money; fewer restrictions on individuals