Bush Vetoes: Better Late Than Never

by Sean Hackbarth

President Bush is threatening to veto a host of Democratic spending bills making the Congress look even more ineffective than they already do. There’s plenty of jabbing at Bush for finally using his constitutional power to fight excessive federal spending.

I’m pleased Bush is threatening to use his veto pen. I’ll be more pleased if it actually happens:

It is an offensive pressed on Bush by congressional GOP leaders and by his own budget director, Rob Portman, a former member of the House Republican leadership as a congressman from Ohio. Portman believes the 2006 electoral catastrophe in his state was caused mainly by Republicans losing the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Unless it is retrieved, Ohio — and the presidency — will go to the Democrats in 2008. By vetoes that would slice more than $20 billion in Democratic spending, Bush is seeking to transform that outlook. It will trigger an epochal political struggle in the months ahead.

It will be a role-reversal from the 1990s when a Republican Congress got stymied by a Democratic President. Despite his electoral defeat President Clinton turned the political tides and ended up the winner in a test of wills with Speaker Newt Gingrich. Is Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid willing to shut down the federal government? Bush doesn’t have the political or communication skills of Clinton, but with his low approval numbers he has nothing to lose. Those numbers can go no where but up.

“Bush’s Veto Strategy”

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

8 Responses to “Bush Vetoes: Better Late Than Never”

1

it’s too bad bush is only interested in making political hay, and not in really acting like a conservative. more typical bs out of our “leaders”.

2

Funny, you guys had zero interest in keeping down spending while you controlled Congress. You only oppose pork when it doesn’t go into the pockets of your friends.

3

No doubt.

Oh, now that DEMOCRATS want to spend money, he’ll whip out the pen. Ha! Anyone who sees this as Bush “finally using his constitutional power” to act more conservative is a moron.

4

Jim, if you actually read TAM you’d find plenty of complaints regarding the Republicans and their prolifigate spending.

5

also, for all the noise the republicans are making about this the over 30,000 earmarks in the bill were bi-partisan. the grand ‘ol do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do party.

6

Also cut down in those vetoes were port and chemical plant security measures that would have truly done some good to make us safer from the types of attacks we face.

The mess in Iraq has taken our eyes away from the dangers we face. We are less safe because of the policies and actions of the Bush administration.

7

There were conservatives who were upset with the Republican congress, and I should have acknowledged the fact even though God knows they didn’t raise their voices very loudly or at any event very effectively and most Republicans, whatever their private qualms, were content to sit on the sidelines and cheer as the administration and its congressional allies blew through the Clinton surplus to build bridges to nowhere.

Like most liberals, I’m in favor of fiscal restraint and keep an eye on the deficit. I don’t hate the government and don’t want to see it bankrupted. As a result, I’m unhappy with wasteful spending whether it is done by Republicans or Democrats. My read on the situation is that the current leadership in Congress has cut back on pork, though perhaps all it has done has restored the status quo before the Republican orgy of the last twelve years. Nancy Pelosi is my representative, and I have urged her to continue to work towards more disciplined spending.

8

Jay K has a valid point in his first post – Bush won the funding vote for the troops; I have no doubt he sees this as another battle he can win and gain political points. Given his past record, it has nothing to do with reining in spending.

Jim H – If Nancy Pelosi is your rep, you might want to enquire what happened to earmark transparency between her first 100 hours and now. It took a wholesale effort by bloggers and some MSM authors to pull Obey back from the stunt he was pulling to hide earmarks even more than they already were.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>