Posted on 04/26/2006 7:53:35 AM PDT by Small-L
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush threatened on Tuesday to veto a bill to fund the war in Iraq and U.S. hurricane rebuilding after conservatives from his own party complained it was becoming bloated with special interest projects.
Bush, who has never vetoed a bill in more than five years as president, put the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on notice that he could not go along with the $106.5 billion bill it was debating.
Democrats have been hammering away at the $3 trillion in new debt the Republican-controlled Congress and White House have presided over during the past five years. This fiscal year alone, the U.S. budget deficit could exceed $400 billion.
The administration had proposed about $92 billion in emergency funds for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue rebuilding southern states hit by Hurricane Katrina.
"If the president is ultimately presented a bill that provides more than $92.2 billion, exclusive of funding for the president's plan to address pandemic influenza, he will veto the bill," a White House statement said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, applauded Bush and said he "will support a veto, if necessary."
In March, Congress defied a veto threat from Bush and pushed ahead with legislation to stop a Dubai-owned firm from managing some American ports. Dubai Ports World abandoned that plan when the extent of Congress' opposition became clear.
DIVIDED OVER SPENDING
Republicans are deeply divided over spending priorities in an election year.
The Senate could take up to two weeks to debate the $106.5 billion measure that includes $67.6 billion the Pentagon says it urgently needs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. About $27 billion would be added to the cleanup tab for Hurricane Katrina. Various other projects totaled nearly $12 billion.
On Tuesday, the Bush administration asked Congress to approve an additional $2.2 billion in emergency funds to strengthen levees around New Orleans. This would be in addition to almost $1.5 billion previously sought.
But the overall spending in the Senate bill is about $14.5 billion more than Bush requested and what has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Included in the added funding inserted by senators was aid for farmers who have suffered weather-related disasters, funds for the U.S. fishing industry and money to move a Mississippi railroad critics say would only help developers and casinos.
Calling it the "railroad to nowhere," Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, and some House conservatives vowed to delete the $700 million for the CSX railroad line. Before he became Bush's treasury secretary, John Snow was the company's chairman.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican, defended the railroad project, saying "the future well-being of that entire coast area would be enhanced if the railroad could be relocated."
Hart said Coburn will join efforts to delete $500 million in the bill that would help Northrop Grumman Corp. offset "business disruption expenses" in its Gulf Coast shipyards, saying such losses would likely be covered by insurers and pending litigation.
"We are overweight and overspending," said Rep. Tom Feeney, a Florida Republican, referring to spending bills in recent years that have contributed to huge federal budget deficits.
It is not unusual for members of Congress, especially in an election year, to tack special-interest projects onto "must-do" legislation, such as a war-funding bill.
Bloated spending has undercut Republicans' long-standing claims they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said one need only look at huge federal expenditures over the past five years "if Republicans want to know why we're in the tank" with voters.
Now that the '06 election is looming, and Bush is worried that if the D'rats win he'll be impeached, he suddenly gets a bit of fiscal backbone. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's too little, too late.
Ok, so let me ask this question. If this bloated bill reaches his desk and he vetoes it, would that win back Conservatives or is it too late? To me, it is a bit late, but better late than never.
If BUSH is doing a good thing then say it is a good thing and encourage it. Otherwise you will sound like a Dem.
It would take more than that to win voters back.
If it's that vital, why doesn't the state appropriate the money and do the job itself?
If it's too late to you, what's the reason you posted this? The title of this is a bit misleading because it's not the "war" part of it that's the problem, it's the bloated Katrina give away.
Bush be damned no matter what he does....
Your're rght, he will not win re-election.
He's only threatening to veto it because there is 2 billion in there to secure our borders.
Anything that reins in earmarks and spending is a good thing. Anyone who advocates reducing the bloat is doing a good thing, Bush included. My question is why did he wait until now? He and Congress have added $3Trillion to the federal debt, have raised domestic spending more and faster than any president in history, and gave us the largest entitlement increase since Johnson. He threatened to veto the hugely bloated Transportation Bill and when Congress exceeded his limit, he signed it anyway.
Pardon me, but I'll save my praise for Bush until he actually does something about cutting spending.
LOL! That's so regrettably true it's funny.
I don't change titles, that's the title Reuters gave it.
If it's too late to you, what's the reason you posted this?
First, Bush isn't running for reelection, the House is. Second, I'll be voting for my current R- Congressman because he's a strong supporter of fiscal restraint and strict constructionsism. Third, neither of my R- Senators is up for reelection, but if they were, I'd be supporting one of them and not the other for the same reason. Fourth, it's not too late for me, but I fear that it may be too late for the Republican majority in the House.
Last poll I saw 59% of the population supports their own congressman. That means a lot of people dislike other district's congressmen but also means that since they can't vote for the other district's congressmen, except in St. Louis (joke), the make up of congress will change very little.
Bush hasn't yet seen a bloated spending bill he didn't sign, so why should this one be any different?
Go back to MoveOn.org arse-clown!
Actually, I'd say the RINOs in Congress and Bush's neo-cons did a pretty good job without our help, FR's Bushaters (I don't happen to be one) don't amount to enough to reverse one precinct let alone an election, but the Conservative base who feel abandoned by the Party, are the ones we need to worry about. They're the ones who won't show up on election day.
UNLESS Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress turn their ship around soon. The opportunities are golden to do something dramatic--immegration, gasoline prices, 2007 budget, tax reform..., but alas if we just had (more of) a majority, then we could really do something. That excuse has about run its course, now do something!
WSB's Washington reporter just said that someone is keeping track. So far in six years, Bush has treatened to veto bills 135 times, but has actually vetoed none. 135-0! I'd say his threats don't mean much to the RINOs in Congress or to us for that matter.
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.