MaliceDR
November 14th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Yes, a rare serious post by me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13cnd-veto.html?ex=1352696400&en=183a69953e85a117&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a major spending measure that would have funded education, health care and job training programs, saying it contained money for too many of the special projects known as earmarks. But he signed a $459 billion bill to increase the Pentagon’s nonwar funding.
The veto, on a measure providing $150.7 billion in discretionary spending for the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, was announced as Bush was en route to Indiana to deliver an economics speech in which he chastised Congress for “wasteful spending” and describe it as acting “like a teenager with a new credit card.”
The president’s action guaranteed a new round of wrangling with the Democrats who control Congress over war costs and clashing domestic spending priorities.
The president’s criticisms of Congressional spending priorities have grown steadily more pointed. But in her immediate response to the veto, the Democratic speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, adopted a restrained tone, saying that compromise was possible but that the president needed to help if the two sides were to find “common ground.”
The veto announcement also came as top Democratic lawmakers were unveiling a new study on the “hidden costs” of the Iraq and Afghan war. They said that if one included factors such as the higher cost of oil, lost productivity, and interest payments on money borrowed to finance the wars, the real costs would nearly double, to more than $1.5 trillion.
The report, from Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, said that the administration has spent or requested $804 billion to wage the two wars through the end of 2008.
But experts say it is difficult to project war costs into the future; and while oil prices have surged from around $37 a barrel in 2003 to well above $90 a barrel, it is difficult to determine the precise contributions of the wars to that increase.
The Defense Department measure signed by Mr. Bush includes a stopgap spending bill that will finance operations of most federal agencies at 2007 levels through Dec. 14.
Congress is still working on a bill to provide a fresh infusion of money for the Iraq war, while requiring Mr. Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, attacked both the veto and the level of war spending.
“Cancer research, investments in our schools, job training, protecting workers, and many other urgent priorities have all fallen victim to a president who squanders billions of dollars in Iraq but is unwilling to invest in America’s future,” Mr. Kennedy said.
And Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, denounced the veto as “pure politics.”
But Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said that the vetoed measure exceeded the president’s fiscal target by $10 billion and included 2,000 earmarks, the special projects that lawmakers regularly vow to rein in.
“We call on Congress to take out the pork and reduce the overall spending levels and return it to the president,” Ms. Perino told reporters traveling with Bush on Air Force One, according to a transcript released by the White House.
But Ms. Pelosi called the vetoed measure “a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill that addresses the priorities of the American people,” from cancer research to veterans health care. “At the same time,” she said, “President Bush and his Congressional allies demand hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq — none of it paid for.”
“Democrats have offered to work cooperatively with the president to address the priorities of our nation; we believe our differences are not so great that compromise cannot be reached,” Ms. Pelosi said. “But the president must work with us finding common ground.”
The president’s tone, in his speech in Indiana, was hardly conciliatory.
“Congress now sitting in Washington holds this philosophy,” Mr. Bush said. “The majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it’s acting like a teenager with a new credit card.”
“This year alone, the leadership in Congress has proposed to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides,” the president added. “Now, some of them claim that’s not really much of a difference — the scary part is they seem to mean it.”
Describing the Congress as far too quick to pay for new programs by adding to Americans’ tax load, he said, “New taxes should be opposed strenuously.”
The president acknowledged the strains facing Americans and the national economy, led by high oil prices, a troubled housing market and uncertainty in the financial markets. But he spent far more time talking about the economy’s underlying strength. “Sure, there’s some challenges facing us,” Mr. Bush said, “but the underpinnings of our economy are strong, and we’re a resilient economy.”
Let me get this straight: let's spend 459 billion on the Pentagon but veto a bill to provide 150.7 billion to fund cancer research, job training, and that No Child Left-Behind act he made such a big deal about supporting until after it passed.
And then he accuses Congress of being financially irresponsible.
Hypocracy? Reasonable? Discuss.
I know political discussions can become fiery, so please keep the heat to a minimum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13cnd-veto.html?ex=1352696400&en=183a69953e85a117&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a major spending measure that would have funded education, health care and job training programs, saying it contained money for too many of the special projects known as earmarks. But he signed a $459 billion bill to increase the Pentagon’s nonwar funding.
The veto, on a measure providing $150.7 billion in discretionary spending for the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, was announced as Bush was en route to Indiana to deliver an economics speech in which he chastised Congress for “wasteful spending” and describe it as acting “like a teenager with a new credit card.”
The president’s action guaranteed a new round of wrangling with the Democrats who control Congress over war costs and clashing domestic spending priorities.
The president’s criticisms of Congressional spending priorities have grown steadily more pointed. But in her immediate response to the veto, the Democratic speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, adopted a restrained tone, saying that compromise was possible but that the president needed to help if the two sides were to find “common ground.”
The veto announcement also came as top Democratic lawmakers were unveiling a new study on the “hidden costs” of the Iraq and Afghan war. They said that if one included factors such as the higher cost of oil, lost productivity, and interest payments on money borrowed to finance the wars, the real costs would nearly double, to more than $1.5 trillion.
The report, from Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, said that the administration has spent or requested $804 billion to wage the two wars through the end of 2008.
But experts say it is difficult to project war costs into the future; and while oil prices have surged from around $37 a barrel in 2003 to well above $90 a barrel, it is difficult to determine the precise contributions of the wars to that increase.
The Defense Department measure signed by Mr. Bush includes a stopgap spending bill that will finance operations of most federal agencies at 2007 levels through Dec. 14.
Congress is still working on a bill to provide a fresh infusion of money for the Iraq war, while requiring Mr. Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, attacked both the veto and the level of war spending.
“Cancer research, investments in our schools, job training, protecting workers, and many other urgent priorities have all fallen victim to a president who squanders billions of dollars in Iraq but is unwilling to invest in America’s future,” Mr. Kennedy said.
And Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, denounced the veto as “pure politics.”
But Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said that the vetoed measure exceeded the president’s fiscal target by $10 billion and included 2,000 earmarks, the special projects that lawmakers regularly vow to rein in.
“We call on Congress to take out the pork and reduce the overall spending levels and return it to the president,” Ms. Perino told reporters traveling with Bush on Air Force One, according to a transcript released by the White House.
But Ms. Pelosi called the vetoed measure “a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill that addresses the priorities of the American people,” from cancer research to veterans health care. “At the same time,” she said, “President Bush and his Congressional allies demand hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq — none of it paid for.”
“Democrats have offered to work cooperatively with the president to address the priorities of our nation; we believe our differences are not so great that compromise cannot be reached,” Ms. Pelosi said. “But the president must work with us finding common ground.”
The president’s tone, in his speech in Indiana, was hardly conciliatory.
“Congress now sitting in Washington holds this philosophy,” Mr. Bush said. “The majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it’s acting like a teenager with a new credit card.”
“This year alone, the leadership in Congress has proposed to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides,” the president added. “Now, some of them claim that’s not really much of a difference — the scary part is they seem to mean it.”
Describing the Congress as far too quick to pay for new programs by adding to Americans’ tax load, he said, “New taxes should be opposed strenuously.”
The president acknowledged the strains facing Americans and the national economy, led by high oil prices, a troubled housing market and uncertainty in the financial markets. But he spent far more time talking about the economy’s underlying strength. “Sure, there’s some challenges facing us,” Mr. Bush said, “but the underpinnings of our economy are strong, and we’re a resilient economy.”
Let me get this straight: let's spend 459 billion on the Pentagon but veto a bill to provide 150.7 billion to fund cancer research, job training, and that No Child Left-Behind act he made such a big deal about supporting until after it passed.
And then he accuses Congress of being financially irresponsible.
Hypocracy? Reasonable? Discuss.
I know political discussions can become fiery, so please keep the heat to a minimum.