Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

With GOP Congress behind him, Bush has yet to use veto
Corvallis Gazette Times ^ | 1/6/03 | Jim Abrams

Posted on 01/07/2004 1:17:27 AM PST by Tim Osman

WASHINGTON — Aided by a Republican-controlled Congress, President Bush is on track to become the first chief executive since John Quincy Adams in the 1820s to complete a full term without vetoing one bill.

He has, however, made frequent use of the veto threat, and so far that's been enough to get what he wants.

By comparison, President Clinton issued 37 vetoes during his eight years in office. Bush's father had 44 during his single term. Franklin Roosevelt was the champion bill slayer, killing 635 either by regular veto or "pocket" veto, which means letting a bill lapse without a presidential signature when Congress is not in session.

Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker said there was a time when "a large number of vetoes was seen as a sign of a vigorous presidency."

Not now. Bush's veto-free presidency, Baker said, is "a recognition that at this particular point in history the Republicans are showing an incredible degree of solidarity."

The GOP has controlled the House for all three of Bush's years in office; Democrats held a slim majority in the Senate for about half that time. That Democratic period mostly followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, however, which fostered a rare level of cooperation between the White House and congressional Democrats. Republicans now control the Senate.

Unlike Clinton, who couldn't always rely on the support of his fellow Democrats, Bush can count on like-minded GOP leaders to make sure that bills reach his desk without objectionable provisions.

That hasn't pleased everyone, including some fiscal conservatives who have faulted Bush for not blocking spending increases. A year ago, Bush demanded that a final 2003 spending package be held to $385 billion, but then signed a $397 billion bill.

"The president cannot say, as he has many times, that ‘I'm going to tell Congress to enforce some spending discipline' and then not veto bills," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said.

The writers of the Constitution assured strong presidential influence in the legislative process by giving the president the power to reject bills passed by Congress. Except for a few presidents, they have used the power sparingly, with 2,550 vetoes over the 213 years of the republic. Vetoes can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, but that has happened only 106 times, Congressional Research Service records show.

George Washington issued the first of his two vetoes, on congressional apportionment, in 1792. Grover Cleveland was one of the most prolific vetoers, killing 584 bills in his two terms, mostly involving what he thought were unjustified patronage and Civil War pensions.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded the assassinated Abraham Lincoln, saw 15 of his 29 vetoes overturned by an antagonistic Congress. Two other vice presidents who entered the White House upon the death or resignation of the president, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford, are next highest with 12 overrides.

"They had to try to establish their independence" by wielding the veto power, said Senate historian Donald Ritchie. "To some degree it was a question of their legitimacy as acting presidents."

While eschewing the veto, Bush has used veto threats to keep Congress in line. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, counted 16 veto threats late last year on a giant, $373 billion spending bill for the 2004 budget year that the Senate must deal with when it returns this month.

In almost every case, GOP leaders negotiating the final bill sided with Bush, even when members had shown bipartisan willingness to defy the president on such issues as opening travel to Cuba or opposing new administration rules on overtime eligibility.

The threat of vetoes of major spending or defense bills has been enough to head off efforts to ease restrictions on money for international family planning groups involved in abortion, prevent a school voucher program in Washington, D.C., delay a military base closings initiative or stop plans to open up more government jobs to private competition.

A possible veto also thwarted a move in Congress to require Iraq to pay back part of the $18.6 billion set aside for reconstruction of the country in a recent $87 billion wartime spending bill.

Bush scored a political victory when he refused to yield on language in the bill creating the new Homeland Security Department that gave him greater power to hire and fire workers. Democratic opposition to the bill over the labor issue became a liability for them in the 2002 elections.

Bush has compromised at times to avoid using the veto pen, most recently over congressional efforts to block a Federal Communications Commission decision to allow media companies to own TV stations watched by 45 percent of the country's viewers, up from the current 35 percent cap. Negotiators for the big spending bill settled for 39 percent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; congress; gop; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: CWOJackson
A guy gets on the forum and posts a decidedly conservative (read: small government) opinion, and you come out and accuse him of being a DUer? Geez.

Get a grip, dude. Your rhetoric is getting more shrill every day. Face it. The Republican base id pretty upset with Bush on several legitimate issues. Do you have any good arguments to defend him? If not, quit cluttering up the threads with your crappy attitude.
21 posted on 01/07/2004 3:07:54 AM PST by ovrtaxt (You got an extra copy of NAFTA? I'm like totally out of toilet paper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Get a grip yourself dude. In the few days that he has done nothing but attack the President dude. You know, cluttering up the threads with his crappy attitude dude.
22 posted on 01/07/2004 3:15:00 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
No, OJ, I don't see it that way. He is attacking some of the President's policies. You seem to be a sycophantic, dedicated member of the cult of personality. Bush is a great President, but he's not perfect. Criticism, based on facts, is the whole idea of this forum.

Your insulting tactics are humorous at best, depressing at worst. Reply if you wish, but I won't. Cry to someone else.

23 posted on 01/07/2004 3:30:18 AM PST by ovrtaxt (You got an extra copy of NAFTA? I'm like totally out of toilet paper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Yes, he is attacking some of the President's policies...every day he attacks, attacks, attacks. Very constructive in an election year...but hey, even trolls need cheerleaders.
24 posted on 01/07/2004 3:34:44 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
We are all blonde chicks here on FR, donchyano??

If only we would listen to these seminar posters we'd recognize our evil ways and repent.
25 posted on 01/07/2004 3:39:35 AM PST by Neets (Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Neets
With a tag line like that...no, I won't say it.
26 posted on 01/07/2004 3:43:47 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson; Tim Osman
Re: posts #13 and #14....

CWOJackson....you got smoked, my firend. I'd cut my losses if I were you.
27 posted on 01/07/2004 3:44:35 AM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
;-)
28 posted on 01/07/2004 3:45:24 AM PST by Neets (Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
Of course you would...me, I don't intend to make it easy for the DU trolls this election.
29 posted on 01/07/2004 3:46:05 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Neets
Of course the perfect tag line for the I hate Bush crowd would be...
30 posted on 01/07/2004 3:47:38 AM PST by CWOJackson (abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
I don't intend to make it easy for the DU trolls this election.

Will you be serving up any proof with that?

31 posted on 01/07/2004 3:54:24 AM PST by Glenn (What were you thinking, Al?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
No need...he serves it up himself.
32 posted on 01/07/2004 3:56:21 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
Oh, I know, but you'd think this would be the time to make noise about THAT. They have a majority in both houses, the Rats are on record as being for it now, and it seems like it'd be an easy win. All I hear is crickets...

and Barney Frank buggering the Congressional Pages.
33 posted on 01/07/2004 4:08:47 AM PST by LibertarianInExile (When taglines are outlawed only outlaws will have taglines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tim Osman
What you said.
34 posted on 01/07/2004 4:15:26 AM PST by LibertarianInExile (When taglines are outlawed only outlaws will have taglines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
You're a pretty prolific Bush basher for someone so new around here.

Ah, the old "Bush basher" defense. Perhaps you'd like to defend the specifics that were listed rather than the simplistic "Bush basher" defense.

No doubt you can find some help over at the "Day in the Life" thread.

35 posted on 01/07/2004 4:31:58 AM PST by RJCogburn ("I need a good judge."......Lucky Ned Pepper to Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Naw, going to all of his anti-Bush threads would waste too much time when reasonable folks can tell them for what they are. But what the heck, enjoy them to your hearts content.
36 posted on 01/07/2004 4:34:00 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tim Osman
Exactly there is no one in congress to have ba**s to say NO! Just say NO! (to the illegal alien travesty!)
37 posted on 01/07/2004 4:34:49 AM PST by stopem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Osman
Well said, Tim.

I don't know if it's just being political hacks, though. You gotta admit GWB looks sooooo good in that flight suit.
38 posted on 01/07/2004 4:35:03 AM PST by RJCogburn ("I need a good judge."......Lucky Ned Pepper to Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
No need...he serves it up himself.

If every new poster has to pass muster with you, you are going to be one busy cop.

39 posted on 01/07/2004 5:37:15 AM PST by Glenn (What were you thinking, Al?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Not really...most folks can pretty well spot the sudden convert with an agenda. Of course if it matches their own agenda they cheer it on.
40 posted on 01/07/2004 5:38:22 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson