Born-Again Vetoer?
Are we really supposed to buy "George Walker Bush, Fiscal Hawk"?
The phrase "better late than never" comes to mind. Perhaps if Dubya had tightened up the federal anus years ago, his party wouldn't have gotten so schtonkered on the appropriations happy juice, and they'd still be in power. Of course, this argues for his veto threats being precisely "blather for a political pep rally" rather than serious intent. Which is another way of saying I'll believe his vetoes when I see them, and not before. Most likely the Dems will trim a little gristle here and drain a little grease there, like Hill GOPers did in prior years, and Bush will sign all nine contested appropriations bills essentially intact. Because as we all know, vetoing nine out of twelve appropriations bills, and thus raising the spectre of an inter-Branch budget showdown that could lead to a government shutdown that would be blamed on Bush and the GOP, is the antithesis of "bipartisanship". And the New Tone forbids any departure from pure "bipartisan cooperation."
But let's not forget who really put the country into this one mess amongst many:
Surprise, my ass. Almost makes me wish Bush would just stand aside and sign the entire nine-tentacled mess without a peep, just to teach those ignorant numbnut voters a lesson in just how ignorantly numbnutted they really are.
Unless they sent Democrats to Congress because they thought Republicans weren't spending enough. I consider that the more likely possibility simply because I can't quite believe that that many of my fellow citizens are that obtuse.
Of course, if that's the case, the President may be about to lead his party into political oblivion. If he's on the level about these vetoes, at least. But at least this Little Big Horn would be for a worthy, if belated cause, unlike his nascent United States of Mexico scheme.
Addressing a Republican fundraising dinner at the Washington Convention Center on Wednesday night, President Bush declared: "If the Democrats want to test us, that's why they give the president the veto. I'm looking forward to vetoing excessive spending, and I'm looking forward to having the United States Congress support my veto." That was more than blather for a political pep rally. Bush plans to veto the homeland security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the twelve appropriations bills for fiscal 2008, only three will be signed by the President in the form shaped by the House. What's more, Bush correctly claimed that he has the House votes needed to sustain these vetoes. The unpopular President is taking the offensive on fiscal responsibility. After bowing to Republican demands on earmarks, Democratic leaders face a battle of the budget.
The phrase "better late than never" comes to mind. Perhaps if Dubya had tightened up the federal anus years ago, his party wouldn't have gotten so schtonkered on the appropriations happy juice, and they'd still be in power. Of course, this argues for his veto threats being precisely "blather for a political pep rally" rather than serious intent. Which is another way of saying I'll believe his vetoes when I see them, and not before. Most likely the Dems will trim a little gristle here and drain a little grease there, like Hill GOPers did in prior years, and Bush will sign all nine contested appropriations bills essentially intact. Because as we all know, vetoing nine out of twelve appropriations bills, and thus raising the spectre of an inter-Branch budget showdown that could lead to a government shutdown that would be blamed on Bush and the GOP, is the antithesis of "bipartisanship". And the New Tone forbids any departure from pure "bipartisan cooperation."
But let's not forget who really put the country into this one mess amongst many:
After six years of profligacy, voters finally rebelled and sent Democrats to Congress instead - apparently convinced that it would result in lower spending.
Surprise! They've turned out to be even more profligate than the Republicans.
Surprise, my ass. Almost makes me wish Bush would just stand aside and sign the entire nine-tentacled mess without a peep, just to teach those ignorant numbnut voters a lesson in just how ignorantly numbnutted they really are.
Unless they sent Democrats to Congress because they thought Republicans weren't spending enough. I consider that the more likely possibility simply because I can't quite believe that that many of my fellow citizens are that obtuse.
Of course, if that's the case, the President may be about to lead his party into political oblivion. If he's on the level about these vetoes, at least. But at least this Little Big Horn would be for a worthy, if belated cause, unlike his nascent United States of Mexico scheme.
posted by JASmius at 10:15 PM
<<< Home