Credit: Yahoo! News/USAToday.com

 

 

 

Bush's pro-corporate agenda crowds out GOP principles

 

Fri Jan 16, 6:12 AM ET

 

 

When President Bush announced his plan to permit illegal immigrants to work in the USA, he outraged conservatives from radio host Rush Limbaugh to Republicans in Congress. They questioned why Bush would advocate a policy that they say encourages unlawful entry into the country.

 

Viewed in isolation, the proposal does appear to run counter to the Republican Party's tough-on-crime philosophy. But when looked at in a broader context, Bush's plan fits a pattern: Since taking office, he repeatedly has championed big-business interests over other Republican causes. Indeed, business groups have pushed for an open-door immigration policy that increases the labor supply and keeps wages down.

 

Whether Bush's immigration plan goes anywhere is uncertain. But the proposal raises a more vital issue for the GOP. By defining itself through the big-business playbook that the White House is following, the party raises questions about its commitment to the populist values that catapulted Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) into the White House in 1980 and sparked the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

 

In fact, such concerns already are being voiced by more than 90 Republican members of Congress. They plan to meet later this month to publicize their dismay over the rapid growth of government under the Bush administration. Their worries may not pose an immediate threat to Bush, who continues to enjoy broad support in polls. But if his narrow focus on pleasing Corporate America continues to collide with a broader party agenda, it could jeopardize the Republicans' ambitions to rule the nation long term as the majority party.

 

While business concerns historically have been a high GOP priority, in recent years the party has focused more on Main Street than Wall Street. The 1994 Republican "Contract with America" - the manifesto it ran on when it seized control of Congress - promised to help small business through deregulation and tax cuts.

 

Now, as conservatives are quick to point out, big business is the primary beneficiary of many administration policies. In addition to the proposed relaxation of immigration policy, other examples include:

 

Corporate welfare. The Cato Institute, a think tank that advocates small government and fiscal prudence, estimates Washington spends more than $90 billion a year on grants, subsidies and loan guarantees for corporations. That's 4% of total federal spending and about three times the budget of the Homeland Security Department. The subsidy will rise by more than $85 billion during the next 10 years because of payments to drug companies, insurers and large corporations under the recently enacted Medicare prescription drug law. The largest subsidies, designed to discourage companies from forcing retirees into the federal insurance program, undermine the conservative principle that Washington should not interfere in the marketplace. They are one reason many conservative lawmakers were reluctant to support the legislation.

 

Wall Street tax cut. At the urging of many corporate leaders, Bush last year prodded through Congress $383 billion in tax cuts over 10 years on income from dividends and gains from the sale of stock and other assets. These tax breaks had little support among rank-and-file Republican lawmakers, who preferred to use the money to reduce taxes further for small businesses and families with children.

 

States' rights. Last December, the administration began threatening lawsuits against states that import medications from Canada, where price caps make many prescription drugs far cheaper than in the USA. In taking on that battle, the administration allied itself with the pharmaceutical industry - which fears a loss of profits - against conservatives who believe Washington should not tell states what to do, particularly concerning such a popular consumer issue.

 

The administration says its pro-business agenda has helped revive the economy and encourage job creation. In that respect, it says support for business dovetails with the broader goal of ensuring that the job market continues to grow.

 

The administration is right that serving the needs of narrow interests also can benefit the broader public. But its eagerness to please the corporate world carries negative consequences, as well. The largesse showered on business contributes to an ever-swelling federal government that passes the bills on to future generations and undercuts core Republican principles.

 

As more Republican conservatives see the dangers in that approach, they recognize that what's good for business is not always good for America - or their party.

 

 

Oh my, Rush Limbaugh outraged at President Bush?

 

Spicy news... :lol

"Indeed, business groups have pushed for an open-door immigration policy that increases the labor supply and keeps wages down."

 

If these guys get mininum wage instead of less and are entitled to certain benefits guarenteed by law, I don't see how this lowers wages...it just will increase the amount of people paying taxes in this country. People are getting here illegally already, so why not tax them? They're harder working than Americans anyway, cherish America more than "we" do, I see no problem with it.

 

However, I do agree with the article, because Bush's focus has been on nothing but spending and special interests. The special interests thing doesn't surprise me, but the spendocratism of the republican party does. Newt, we need your adulterous ass back.

"Indeed, business groups have pushed for an open-door immigration policy that increases the labor supply and keeps wages down."

 

If these guys get mininum wage instead of less and are entitled to certain benefits guarenteed by law, I don't see how this lowers wages...it just will increase the amount of people paying taxes in this country. People are getting here illegally already, so why not tax them? They're harder working than Americans anyway, cherish America more than "we" do, I see no problem with it.

 

However, I do agree with the article, because Bush's focus has been on nothing but spending and special interests. The special interests thing doesn't surprise me, but the spendocratism of the republican party does. Newt, we need your adulterous ass back.

Flooding the market with cheap labor hurts labor overall...Less incentive to retain workers with raises, good conditions, good hours, etc. Most Americans won't accept minimum wage, so corporations benefit hugely from the cheap, foreign labor. Simple economics.

 

As a side not Im taking the American South to 1865 this semester along with US Urban Society (w/ one of the finest proffs in the South, Joe Adler from Harvard) so look for some posts and books to look up.

dude, what's better. a bunch of illegal immigrants not paying taxes or a bunch of immigrants paying taxes. its pretty simple. everyone has the right to go to america as much as my family did unless they come from countries where they would want to bomb us.

 

furthermore, what "american" works mininum wage? immigrant americans! so i don't see how this is controversial.

Sorianofan... Because we go back to the old unfounded fear that immigrants take "Americans" Jobs.

 

They will not stop coming! Therefore, to make it easier on America's pocket, it is necessary to tax the hell out of them. It doesn't matter how much some people want them to leave, they will stay, because they need to stay to survive. Do you prefer a million illegal immigrants, working without paying taxes and without papers to identify them?