CONGRESS controls spending.
And Bush doesn't have the balls to stop the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED congress and their profligate, obscene spending orgy.
If he doesn't veto spending, then he supports it.
So you're blaming ALL Republicans for their drunken sailor behavior. Well at least we're getting somewhere now. BTW ever heard of the word "veto"? Didn't think so.
Regarding this notion that Congress, not the president, controls spending:
First of all, others have already pointed out that the president has veto power, and that your comment is simply an attack on Republicans in Congress. But in addition, you're ignoring how the real world works, distinct from the theoretical, academic world where one learns everything about government from the constitution.
In the real world, Bush has priorities and pushes Congress to enact them. He can bend members of Congress to his will because he can, say, refuse to campaign for them. Or he can refuse to fund projects in their districts. Or he can do any number of other things to exert influence. True, a president is not a dictator; he can't do anything he wants. Congress feels influence from many sources, not just the White House. But the White House sure is a big one. And in the case of President Bush, he very strongly pushed (or even initiated) a number of big spending bills, pressuring legislators who didn't want to go along.
Is the GOP majority in Congress or not?
Like another poster said, should we get rid of the Republicans in Congress? And who is the one that can veto spending bills?