Today President Bush demonstrated that the domination of both houses of Congress by the Democrats creates a real opportunity for him to look more effective than he has in years, advance his image in the eyes of the public, and perhaps even assure some sort of positive legacy, simply by vetoing the right bills.
President Bush vetoed the $606 billion domestic spending bill which contained over 2,200 personal earmarks for Congressional pet-projects which were pure pork, as identified by laid out several key reasons for doing so.
- The bill includes $22 billion in spending above what Bush requested for 2008, and even more unnecessary spending in the next 4 years adding up to a total of $205 billion in extra discretionary spending mostly on earmark projects. The rate of increase in spending is three times the rate of growth of the economy.
- The bill fails to do anything to address to ballooning costs of Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements. President Bush had asked for some simple reform measures which Congress made no effort to even consider.
- The bill would allow the President's tax reforms to expire, resulting in "the largest tax increase in history," which would be devastating for the economy and for American citizens, and would likely reduce government revenues in the resulting recession.
If the Democrats had half a brain among them, they would have made an effort to keep pork junkies like Chuck Schumer (D-NY), David Obey (D-WI), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) — who loaded this bill with earmarks — under control at least for a year or two. That would have given them an opportunity to play the role of protectors of the public welfare and put the blame for both deficits and cuts in services on Bush. But after 6 years out of power, the greed buildup was too much for them to control and they went hog wild.
Despite excessive war spending, President Bush has actually been pretty successful in keeping domestic spending under control and in producing a strong economy and increasing government revenues through his tax cuts. One result is that he is actually ahead of schedule on his plan to gradually balance the budget and put government spending back on a responsible track. His plan had the budget balanced by 2012 or possibly sooner. So far he has generally exceeded his deficit reduction goals and reached target deficit reduction levels ahead of schedule. The extra spending included in this budget would have pushed back balancing the budget by at least two years and the damage done by the tax increase might push it back indefinitely.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Franco
Dave,
A little on the scary side when you add all this to the major housing bust that is going to keep effecting the economy negitivly.
What kind of a tax increase are we looking at?
2 - troll
Dave - I don't think any of them know any other way to do politics...asking them to restrain spending it's kind of like asking a lawyer to seek justice
3 - gonzo marx
and the Apologist shills for the Administration once again...
hope you get paid well for all the political fellatio
Excelsior?
4 - troll
gonzo - I think that Dave comes up with his machiavellian machinations free of charge
5 - gonzo marx
i get it...so he's not a whore, just a groupie
fair enough, i guess...
and credit where it's due..."If the Democrats had half a brain among them, they would have made an effort to keep pork junkies like Chuck Schumer (D-NY), David Obey (D-WI), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) â€" who loaded this bill with earmarks â€" under control at least for a year or two." - is perfectly politically accurate...
one would Hope that such proper Restraint would be enforced in perpetuity...but this crop of DLC stooges followed in the footsteps of the last 6 years of RNC stooges, i do think the numbers show that they demonstrated a bit more restraint than the last batch tho...but given enough time, they would most likely behave just as badly
keep an Eye on them, and toss them out on a regular basis, imo....attempting to keep one gang or the other in Power rather than housecleaning only aids and abets those who abuse said Power
Excelsior?
6 - troll
you mean toss them out the airlock - ?
7 - gonzo marx
if required, troll...depends on the infraction...eh?
so much depends on the state of mind now, doesn't it?
Excelsior?
8 - Clavos
Did anyone consider the possibility that the dems deliberately loaded the legislation with pork, because:
It was a win-win: if Bush doesn't veto, they're heroes for bringin' the bacon back home, and if (as he did) he does, it's another black mark against those scurrilous repubs (during an election race), who don't want the people to have anything.
Just askin'...
9 - Dr Dreadful
Hmmm...
The bill described by Dave in his bulletpoints reads conspicuously like a bill from the pre-2006 Congress.
Plus ca change...
10 - Clavos
You do link some cool videos, gonzo.
A most unusual musician. I especially like the "trumpet" with his lips.
See the length of the fingernails on his right hand?
11 - Dave Nalle
and the Apologist shills for the Administration once again...
Such shilling as:
"Democrats...who are hardly to blame for all the money sunk into the Iraq War and past years of excessive Republican spending"
The article is hard on both sides and you, as usual, are just trying to spin it in a self-serving way.
hope you get paid well for all the political fellatio
Not a cent, but at least I can write what I do with a clear conscience.
Dave
12 - gonzo marx
@ #8 - a distinct possibility, but much more effective if there is minimal/no pork vis a vis leading up Nov 08
Doc D sez - "The bill described by Dave in his bulletpoints reads conspicuously like a bill from the pre-2006 Congress."
Quoted for Truth
both observation i mention here are similar to what i was getting at previously... the good thing about it is that it's a bit less pork than previously, and we now get some oversight rather than rubberstamping
@ #10 - glad you enjoyed it, and yeah..like Kaki King, many of these stylists use the nails of their right hands like fingerpicks...
i do try and have some depth in my Choices, but sometimes it's just for a Pun...it keeps me searching...
know what i mean...?
heh
Excelsior?
13 - Maurice®
Great points, Dave. I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that Bush could ever be made to look good.....
It is nice that he can veto a bloated bill. I don't think that will fix his legacy.
At the risk of copying gonzo:
you can't hold no groove... if you got no pocket
14 - Clavos
Ay Mr. Wooten, of the Flecktones!
Hell of a bass!
15 - Baritone
Kaki King is really interesting. Check out cellist Jami Sieber.
B-tone
16 - gonzo marx
oh...so you want cello shots do ya?
heh...
Excelsior?
17 - Dave Nalle
It was a win-win: if Bush doesn't veto, they're heroes for bringin' the bacon back home, and if (as he did) he does, it's another black mark against those scurrilous repubs (during an election race), who don't want the people to have anything.
I'm operating on the theory that at this point enough people realize that pork is bad that they can see beyond the superficial benefits of a few earmarks for their states. If most people are still snowed by a little flashy spending, then there's really not much hope, is there.
Dave
18 - Maurice®
Dave #17
Unfortunately many people still love the pork. Here in Idaho, Larry (I am not gay!) Craig was always bragging about the pork he was bringing in for Mt Home Air Force Base. Many people supported him and were happy to have the Federal dollars come to Idaho.
19 - Clavos
Unfortunately, Dave, I think the fact that the legislation you mention in the article was so loaded up with it proves that pork is still the principal diet of both the politicians and the rubes who send them to Washington.
20 - troll
is it not legitimate to view a major part of national politics as a scramble for limited resources and that maximizing pork is a good thing - a score card for the power brokers - ?
American government and its 'rule of law' is based on the assumption that adversarial and competitive interaction driven by a narrow interpretation of 'self-interest' will yield the best possible result over all in the long run
...so stop yer bitchin'
21 - handyguy
I won't attempt to defend earmarks, although at least they are now clearly labeled as such, with the legislator's name attached to each one. And the Dems have cut the recent GOP level of earmarks approximately in half, contrary to their porky reputation.
But the vast majority of the increased spending in the vetoed bill does not consist of earmarks anyway. It is for social services programs, and is related to stated goals of the Pelosi congress.
From the Baltimore Sun:
...lawmakers rejected proposed cuts that the White House wanted in healthcare access, education, medical research, job training and grants to alleviate poverty and promote economic development. The bill offers a 4.3 percent increase in these programs, $6.2 billion above last year â€" while the White House proposed to cut $3.6 billion.
You can label this pork if you wish. But as I have pointed out before, Dave, Clavos, and others on here would label almost all federal spending pork, and nearly all federal taxes a barely necessary evil.
Example: The bill would allow the President's tax reforms to expire, resulting in "the largest tax increase in history," which would be devastating for the economy and for American citizens, and would likely reduce government revenues in the resulting recession.
Pure unproven and unprovable silliness. To the tune of about $60 billion per year, most of those tax cuts go to people with incomes over $1 million. Bush's tax cuts are not holy writ; they can be revised without the economy collapsing.
The reactions to Charlie Rangel's recent revenue-neutral tax proposal show the real motivations of his opponents: they immediately branded it 'the largest tax increase in history,' a phrase Dave happily cops. Revenue neutral = not a tax increase. Fairly simple concept.
One can in fact disagree with the right's extremist views on spending and taxes without being a socialist or a porker.
Oink.
22 - handyguy
I don't believe the tax cut expiration is part of the bill anyway. It couldn't have gotten 50 Republican votes in the House if it were.
Maybe the bill simply doesn't extend the tax cuts? But they run until 2010 anyway.
The Dems are operating under Paygo rules that require bills to pay for themselves somehow. But they would explicitly put expiration of tax cuts into a bill only if they did not expect any Republican support.
The bill Bush vetoed is the $150.7-billion Labor, Health and Education appropriations bill. Perhaps some fact checking is in order?
23 - bliffle
We ratified corruption in 2004. Stop complaining and try to find your own takeout while we ransack the (diminishing) remainder of the countries wealth.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Maurice (if I may address you by your registered trade mark): I believe Larry isn't gay. I also believe Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman and that the terrorists will get us if we even think about voting Democrat.
;-)
25 - handyguy
Further clarification: The $150.7 billion bill and the $606 billion bill are one and the same. The smaller figure is the 'discretionary' spending, the rest is Medicare and Medicaid.