GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Bush Eager for Budget Showdown

by

President Bush is spoiling for a veto battle with Democrats over spending bills, but Congress has done such a poor job completing its budget work that the showdown could be weeks away.

The Oct. 1 deadline for completing the 12 annual spending bills funding next year’s budgets for 15 Cabinet departments is just a week away, but the Democratic-controlled Congress has yet to send him a single bill. The last time Congress failed to clear a single spending bill by the Oct. 1 deadline occurred in 2002…

Bush vows he won’t be muscled into signing a foot-tall “omnibus” bundle of bills.

“If they think that by waiting until just before they leave for the year to send me a bill that is way over budget and thicker than a phone book, if they think that’s going to force me to sign it, it’s not,” Bush said Monday. (Associated Press)

Wait a sec, President Bush has a veto pen?!? When the heck did that happen? Which damn drawer has it been hiding in for all these years? I’m not sure which amuses me more, Bush trying to act ‘fiscally responsible’ for probably the first time ever, or the Democrats who despite their whining against the GOP last year cannot seem to pass a budget on time let alone one that even approaches being balanced. Ain’t our system grand? Well, I suppose since this involves whether the Feds should take more of my money or not I’ll have to cheer the man on even though I apparently “don’t want to do what’s right for America” some of the time…

— John (Average Gay Joe)

Comments

  2. What’s that ol’ cliche? “Damned if you do; damned if you don’t”. What is it about the blogosphere that it’s more interested in the “bitching vent” than supporting constructive action which ADVANCES their hallowed policy imperiatives?

    If Bush hadn’t threatened a veto, Libertarian and ultra-RightWing PureEnuff, TrueEnuff troglodytes would be out there proclaiming he hasn’t learned the lessons of 2006 elections… and woe to the wannabe GOP Prez contenders (like Rudy McRomney) who appear to have missed the “fiscal” message that conservative voters sent to the GOP last fall.

    If he sharpens that pen for a veto, the Bush-aint-my-Prez conservatives are right there to kick some more dirt in the grave and complain he should have done it sooner.

    Damn. And people wonder why anyone would want to run for office in this day and age?

    Don’t get me wrong… the point about vetoing other bills passed by the conservative-majority controlled GOP Congress in prior sessions is a fair point. But for cryin out loud… the guy appears to have finally found his pen and conservatives STILL bitch.

    Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

  3. Don’t get me wrong… the point about vetoing other bills passed by the conservative-majority controlled GOP Congress in prior sessions is a fair point. But for cryin out loud… the guy appears to have finally found his pen and conservatives STILL bitch.

    When he waits until about 1 1/2 years before his second term ends and only just a few months after lambasting those who have supported him over the years, I do believe we’re entitled to be a tad prickly. Add to this, of course, that he is relying upon those same conservatives to back him up in the coming veto fight. The fact that Bush is far better than the Dems only gets him so far. Perhaps he should have pursued this ‘fiscally responsible’ strategery awhile ago, among other things.

  4. John writes: “Add to this, of course, that he is relying upon those same conservatives to back him up in the coming veto fight.”

    Oh, I don’t think Bush or the WH is under any misconception about the fickle and fair-weather nature of conservatives in Congress, John… I can’t imagine he or the WH is “counting” on conservatives for anything these days. He’ll veto bills to suit his need to keep the quishy, wishy-washy conservatives in Congress happy and stop them from bolting on important Iraq funding issues –toss ’em a bone or some fresh meat to gnaw on from time to time.

    My point was that Bush finally appears ready to veto some spending bills and conservatives bitch about what he didn’t do earlier rather than support him now. Hence my “damned if you, damned if you don’t” cliche.

  6. I am still baffled by the position of the GOP management vis-a-vis conservatives. Is it “Get out of our party and don’t let the door hit you on the way out?” Or is it, “Vote GOP, but don’t expect anything from us because you’re a bunch of nutjobs and we hate you.”

    Conservatives have consistently opposed the free-spending ways of the Bush administration; unless Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, and Jeb Hensarling are somehow not considered conservatives any more. Bush didn’t care about making prescription drug coverage a middle and upper-class entitlement, but suddenly he’s seen the light on S-CHIP? And anyone who points this out is “bitching?”

    The GOP has a lot of problems. Scapegoating conservatives for everything that is wrong in the party seems counter-productive to me. But what do I know?

  7. #6, I am fully supportive of the line-item veto as well. It was one of the points in the Contract with America that Clinton also supported. My recollection is the blowhard Byrd lobbied big time against it, since it put his pork power* in danger. Then the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So it looks like an amendment is needed. Bills, like the budget that contain multiple items should certainly deserve line-item veto scrutiny. And if totally unrelated riders are added to a bill (whether I support them or not) should automatically be vetoed. As a matter of principal, I would support a President who would veto every single bill that contained a rider until a) Congress stops the practice and b) the President is granted a line-item veto.

    *I am also opposed to the seniority rules that state that someone who’s been a senator for 100 years like Byrd seems to be, gets to have more power than someone who’s been in the Senate for 2 years. If anything, states that keep reelecting a bozo should be punished and have any extra earmarks removed. Term limits wouldn’t be needed then.

  10. V, the anti-Washington stance has been a very successful campaign tactic in recent past. Ronnie Reagan, the veritable God of conservatives, ran against Washington while running against the guy (JimmineyCricketCarter) who made a short hobby out of running against Washington. It’s an venerable Washington two-step for some political types and advisors when disgust of Congress and the Prez outpaces disgust of the local pawn broker or used car salesman.

    Rudy, Mitt and even Tancredo have been trying to run against Washington –hell, even conservative maverick McCain has tried on that mantle enough lately to be honored in the ExtremeMakeOver Hall of Shame, DC-style.

    That’s just smart campaigning. I’m waiting for Hillary to argue she’s a “fresh start” for Washington…. oppps, she already did. And her time in DC goes back to Watergate!

    I dare say for conservatives who have Potomac Fever coursing through their souls, the only respectable occupation these must be as a conservative radio talk show host… those guys get all the breaks and 2nd chances from the adoring, fawning & often times unthinking conservative fans.

  12. …..conservative radio talk show host… those guys get all the breaks and 2nd chances from the adoring, fawning & often times unthinking conservative fans.

    And the point is?

    Being a radio talk show host is a free market job. You bring in the listeners and you rack up the $$$$. You talk down a drainpipe to your mother and two winos and your show gets cancelled. Same rules apply whether you are liberal, “moderate” or conservative.

    The fault, dear Michigan-Matt, lies not in the (talk show) stars, but in ourselves. That is, if there is a fault. And my apologies to Willie Shakespeare.

  13. I think there’s some angst in Republican circles that talk-radio is not a reliable, partisan PR outlet the way the mainstream media is for the Democrats. Talk-radio is blamed, for example, for the double defeat of the amnesty bill earlier this year, when in fact, it was democracy that defeated the amnesty bill, with talk-radio acting as the catalyst. Talk-radio has been a consistent source of principled opposition to Republican over-spending, border neglect and related injustices (such as the Ramos, Campean, and Hernandez prosecutions), amnesty, and the Harriet Miers nomination. Talk radio has not been a reliable cheerleader for the administration or the party, and so it is out-of-favor with Republican elites.

  14. Talk radio has not been a reliable cheerleader for the administration or the party, and so it is out-of-favor with Republican elites.

    Bingo!

    Bush had all the top dogs in for a tete-a-tete and they all went right back to their usual programming. Talk radio is far more in touch with their listeners than the Republican elite is with their grass roots.

    I keep getting “surveys” which assume I can not drool without help. Then they ask me for money to take on the cause. I keep sending back personal letters with reasons why my wallet is staying closed. Do I ever hear back? Yep! I get another survey and a form letter worrying that I may lose my prime status as a party member.

    Why do I feel like a clod on the spike of a golf shoe?

  15. Every two weeks last year, I got an email from the GOP asking for money. I replied to every one with the message “Secure the borders, then we’ll talk.” After a while, they took me off their email list.

    I really don’t think the GOP elites have the slightest frickin’ clue about what’s going on with the working class in this country.

  16. My point was that Bush finally appears ready to veto some spending bills and conservatives bitch about what he didn’t do earlier rather than support him now.

    Which sense we will support him vetoing this bill makes you point rather vapid. Bush also knows we’ll support him on this. Yet giving support to him on what he should have doing all along doesn’t mean he is going to get off scot-free for the rest — particularly when his comments were not very long ago.

  17. Which is why there needs to be a line-item veto.

    Indeed yet I seriously doubt an amendment giving the president such will pass through Congress regardless of which party is in charge. Even the Confederacy for all of its faults was smart enough to its president a line-item veto:

    Art1, Sect7: “…The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.”

    A bit OT but there are some other items of interest in it too:

    Preamble: “…invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

    Art1, Sect2, Cl1: “…but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.”

    Art1, Sec2, Cl5: “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.”

    Art1, Sect8, Cl1: “…but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry…”

    Art1, Sect8, Cl3: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.”

    Art1, Sect8, Cl7: “To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the Ist day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.”

    Art1, Sect9, Cl9: “Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.”

    Art1, Sect9, Cl10: “All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.”

    There are of course some unsavory things in this document and not all of their innovations are wise or perhaps even feasible, but some of the ones above are very interesting in how they could change the debate today.

  18. Then the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So it looks like an amendment is needed.

    Because as the legislative process as written in the Constitution at the moment is, the attempt to give the presidency even a “limited” line-item veto IS unconstitutional. SCOTUS was right. It WILL take an amendment which I doubt will pass unfortunately.