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)
LOL…I’ve wondered about that veto pen myself….NCLB, Prescripton Medicare, Campaign Finance….sighhhhh…..
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.
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.
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.
Which is why there needs to be a line-item veto.
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?
#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.
I would support you on the line item veto.
It needs to be a constitutional amendment as it changes the balance of power.
Hey, it’s not just us conservative nuts who think the GOP has broken the faith of the public through corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, the head of the NRCC tacitly agrees. “I tell candidates all the time, ‘You ought to be running against all of Washington, D.C., and that includes us.'”
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.
So, Mi-Matt, you don’t approve of Rush Limbaugh auctioning off the Democratic smear letter and raising a quarter million dollars for a military charity?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
A bit OT but there are some other items of interest in it too:
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.
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.
I keep sending back personal letters with reasons why my wallet is staying closed.
I prefer enclosing Bush pesos. 🙂
John, thanks mucho! I have a stack of Bush pesos fresh off the printer and ready to use.