I got news for you all...Bush doesn't spend ANYTHING! Read your Constitution, CONGRESS is the legislative body. Bush is commander-in-chief, and runs our foreign policy...is there anyone here who doesn't doubt his conservative qualifications there? That's all that matters...
I should read before posting..."is there anyone that DOUBTS his conservatism" is waht I should have posted. Oh yea...he also has shown that he will nominate and STAND BY his conservative judical appointments.
Oh gimme a break.
Have you ever heard of the Veto power granted in the very constitution you cite?
He has yet to use it in 5 years.
Republican Socialism = Good
Democrat Socialism = Bad.
Go figure.
Bush does have the power to veto bills. He signed the unConstitutional No Child Left Behind Act, among many others.
You're right. We ought to get rid of those Republicans in Congress.
He has more influence over what Congress spends than any other person in the world. The Unconsitutional MeddleCare Prescription Drug Giveaway is an excellent example (and not just because of its cost.) And then there's the Presiden't responsibility (and authority) to veto legislation that is not in the national interest, is morally wrong or is Unconstitutional.
Good point, we should be pissed at the gop congress too!
Perhaps my Constitution is different than yours. He does sign these bills into law. And Bush has never met a spending bill he doesn't like. But you're right. We should be irate at Congress more importantly for listening to his nonsensical suggestions for waste in the first place. Aren't you so glad you spent time back in '02 'winning back the Senate'? How'd that go?
I doubt them. While it is true that Congress spends the money, Bush has yet to veto a bill which would include oh, I don't know, a spending bill? Bush's own proposals include massive spending. It isn't like we have a spendthrift Congress and a President who can't do anything about it. We have a spendthrift Congress and a President who likes it that way. The fact is that Bush is a socialist and Kerry is somewhere between a socialist and a communist. The difference is a difference of degree, not of kind.
Excellent point, Keith! It's a shame the Constitution doesn't give President Bush any power to restrict the orgy of runaway spending our liberal congress has engaged in!
There isn't a spending bill that I can think of that became law without President Bush's signature.
Bush is certainly a social conservative, but he's a bigger fiscal liberal than LBJ. He believes that the answer to almost every problem is expansion of the federal government.
Are you suggesting that the Reagan Defense build-up was due to the spending of the Democratic Congress?
Right. The President proposes, the Congress disposes, as the saying goes.
There is a subtlety about what Bush is doing that is missed by most. He and Rove decided early on, even when campaigning for the 2000 election, that the government has grown so big that it cannot be easily cut. The best that can be hoped for at this point is to redirect it.
Tax cuts were a start but to get them passed many compromises were made. Sunsetting them was the most important. That battle is on the horizon.
The education bill greatly increased spending but it also imposed accountability on the schools and teachers. It had a three year faze in and now that it is working the left is screaming.
The drugs for seniors program is expensive but it has the seeds for privatizing the whole thing. That could later l;ead to privatizing Medicare rather than a Hillary national healthcare plan.
He is working on SS and the tax system to make each more involved with free enterprise and the economy rather than government control.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unavoidable. So is the cost. However, many functions are contracted out rather than done by the government. That is another step in the right direction.
All this new money for hurricane rebuilding is directed toward empowering people with jobs, job training, and is being put into the hands of independent companies who hire people, not government employees.
All conservatives are against big government and big spending but Bush is redirecting this for a better outcome in the long run. The liberals are being out foxed by Rove again.
The new Department of Homeland Security supposedly is not under the Civil Service Administration. That means more freedom in hiring, promoting, and firing people, a longtime problem with government. I hope it got through. If not, Bush tried.
In addition the tax cuts and improved economy keep bring more money into the treasury.
Correct, but the WH has two distict domestic functions concerning the budget: 1) It can propose a budget, and set the priorities and roadmap that the congress can follow. 2) It has the veto pen, the mere threat of which, in the hands of a capable leader, can affect the direction congress takes.
"Leadership" in a democracy isn't dictatorship, by design in the Constitution. It is, however, persuasion, guidance, negotiation, and above all, articulating a clear vision for those in congress to latch onto. Bush has a great opportunity here to shine.
I guess the veto pen ran out of ink?
Bush can veto bills and he has not vetoed a single one!
That would be laughable if not so sad.