[Eagle of Liberty]

Bush did nothing on any of this stuff.

I will definitely give you that, but on many of the budgets, Congress had veto-proof majorities. Should he have at least made one or two symbolic vetoes? Heck yea!

Too many people want to place too much of the blame on Bush when many of the same members of Congress who were part of the 1994 takeover became Washingtonized.

Who stood behind Bush when he tried to tackle SS Reform in 2005, right after it was claimed after winning re-election that he had some political capital to throw around?

[misterrob]

He could have told his own party leaders like Hastert, Delay and Frist that they were on notice that he was not going to tolerate bloated budgets. He could have sold it to the American people that he was going to reduce taxes AND spending. There would have been griping and complaining but I recall back in 1994 that people sort of liked that idea all in all.

SS reform was badly sold. He should have said he wanted to reform it and give citizens more choices with their money. People who were unhappy with how the government was handling their money should have more options. He sold it badly, didn’t have the right people messaging for him and lost the issue.

[SJackson]

I will definitely give you that, but on many of the budgets, Congress had veto-proof majorities. Should he have at least made one or two symbolic vetoes? Heck yea!

The vetos I'd like to have seen, No Child, agriculture bill, energy bill, medicare drugs were GWB's iniatives. IMO Social Security reform was vital, but he did get his share of legislation passed. Failed on immigration though.