[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
through competing health plans managed by insurance companies. This
was the largest extension of entitlement to state benefits since
Johnson s Great Society , although it was accompanied by the cutting
of progressive social welfare schemes such as the Youth Opportunity
Grant programme. From 1994 to 2005 domestic discretionary non-
defence spending rose 70 per cent, with federal spending as a whole
growing 30 per cent in Bush s first term. This led to increasing concern
in late 2004 as the value of the dollar slid. Despite their anti-govern-
ment rhetoric, Bush and the Republican-dominated Congress were
responsible for a major extension of the cost, personnel and role of
government, for example spending far more on the Department of
Education; and this process was greatly accentuated by events in the
shape of the large new Department of Homeland Security, as well as
Hurricane Katrina. The crisis caused by the attacks on 11 September
2001 was a major and novel challenge.Reagan had vetoed the transport
192 a l t e r e d s t a t e s
bill in 1987, but Bush did not veto a single spending bill, although
many envisaged a much greater expenditure than he had requested.
Furthermore, by September 2005, he had not used his power to
propose not spending funds authorized by Congress. Reagan had done
so to great effect, saving $43.4 billion during his eight years. Clinton
saved $6.6 billion, whereas Bush has saved nothing. In February 2006
he presented a $2.8 trillion federal budget. There was also unprece-
dented expenditure and borrowing at the state level. The ten-year plan
for California unveiled by the Governor in January 2006 has a projected
cost of $223 billion and proposes covering this in part by $68 billion in
taxpayers bonds. Despite these problems, tax receipts have risen as a
consequence of economic growth that would be the envy of the rest of
the world: the percentage rise is lower than in, say, India, but the aggre-
gate rise in the usa is greater.
Government under Bush also served as a way to reward supporters,
scarcely new in American politics, but not a way to achieve effectiveness.
Democratic administrations had also used office-holding as a way to
reward supporters, and indeed relatives. Kennedy made his brother
Robert Attorney-General in 1961, while in 1993 Hillary Clinton became
head of the Presidential review of healthcare policy. Cronyism not only
fosters support, but also tries to ensure the presence of those who are
trusted. This often has a strong regional, as well as an ideological, flavour,
as seen with the Georgians who followed Carter to the White House, the
Californians who followed Reagan and, far more dubiously, those from
Arkansas who followed Clinton. His last pardons caused particular
outrage. Republicans might be regarded as especially prone to cronyism
on account of their anti-government ethos and its associated critique of
bureaucratic professionalism, much of which they saw as instinctually
liberal. Democrats lacked that response, but their smaller role than
Republicans in business ensured that public service became a crucial
means for upward mobility for the many and enrichment for the few.
Bush continued the tradition of putting Party supporters into crucial
embassies, leaving, for example, a singularly ineffective ambassador in
London during the run up to the Gulf War. Favouritism encouraged the
questionable lobbying associated with figures such as Jack Abramoff.
Hurricane Katrina exposed the problems created by jobbery, with the inef-
p ol i t i c s 193
fective Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, apparently owing his post to friendship with a friend of Bush.
Bush s preference for rewarding friends, indeed his clientage and fealty
approach to politics, was further shown in 2005 when he nominated
Harriet Miers, his former personal lawyer, for the Supreme Court, a move
that attracted massive criticism, which led her to withdraw her name
from consideration. Although she was clearly a very talented lawyer, and
in 1992 the first woman elected President of the Texas State Bar, Miers s
career indicated the value of political connections. As Governor, Bush
appointed her Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, and as
President, successively, White House Staff Secretary, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Policy and White House Counsel. It is interesting to compare Bush s
policy with that of lower-rank politicians charged with offences under, for
example, the Shakman Act of 1972, which banned the allocation of city
jobs (other than senior policy posts) on the basis of political affiliations,
leading, in 2005, to the charging of senior officials in Chicago. The same
year, George Ryan, the former Governor of Illinois, went on trial for
corruption. Disputes over alleged corruption at the national level recall
the tensions of the early 1970s, as do scandals concerning domestic
individual rights, specifically wiretapping without a warrant and the
acceptability of torture. Bush argued that his authority as Commander-in-
Chief during the War on Terror entitled him to extend executive power,
but there was resistance in both Congress and the courts.
Although his supporters would very much contest the charge, Bush
has also proved a maladroit war President, finding it difficult to under-
stand issues and assess options other than through the prism of his
own convictions and those of his close supporters. Furthermore, while
promising compassionate conservatism and, after his elections, to be
a unifier, he has proved a clearly partisan figure, and has been perceived
as such, with the contrast between Republican and Democratic approval
greater than for previous Presidents. In large part, this partisanship
reflects the convictions of rectitude that stem from his religious beliefs
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]