Reply With Quote
Since when has W cared about controlling spending?
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110011090&677458
Nut up, W.Just before Christmas, Congress sent Mr. Bush a $516 billion omnibus spending bill stuffed with 8,993 special-interest earmarks. To make matters worse, most of the earmarks aren't even in the language of the law itself. They were slipped into a 900-page "committee report" that represented the wish-lists of the Senate and House appropriations committees. Almost no one got a chance to read that report before the budget was passed late at night and with barely a day for members to review it.
Mr. Bush agreed to sign the budget but said he was disappointed at Congress's failure to overcome its earmark addiction. He announced he was asking his budget director, Jim Nussle, "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."
What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn't want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks--the ones that aren't part of the actual budget law and were instead "air-dropped" into the committee report--aren't legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and "presented" to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. "President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote," says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. "He doesn't need a line-item veto."
Since when has W cared about controlling spending?
He hasn't, that's why I said he needs to step up. This would actually be something decent domestically for his legacy. But it's too obvious a thing to do, which means it won't happen.
No one ever remembers a president for cutting a few pork projects. He's going to take a page out of Clinton's book and suddenly care about the Palestinian issue his last year in office.
Come on Chump, 9000 pork projects isn't 'a few'.
Still not a legacy issue.
In bents keep getting re-elected because they gain pull in important congressional commitees...(i.e. they bring home the bacon and protect key home industries), so until we start expecting more from our politicians and change our own voting behavior, don't expect them to change....
dubya's -stained legacy is down the toilet, forever.
He's off globetrotting trying to look statesman-like in his lame months, as calcuated as anything Hillary does.
I expect it will take complete armies to protect him and shut down the anti-American protestors.
Everybody's senator or congressman is great, while everybody else's is the problem.
The entire system is totally corrupted and perverted. Trent Lott's resignation epitomizes the corruption.
Anybody seen how much congressman/senators get paid after they leave office? forever?
Aggie cries about pork, but thinks $T2 wasted in Iraq is wonderfully spent.
After watching the press conference today, I wouldn't be surprsied to see the bill veto'd. I don't know. Bush has been an interesting read when it comes to domestic policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
