![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
But what is he _really_ going to veto?
Mar. 6th, 2006 08:42 amI hear on the news this morning that President Bush is sending legislation to Congress asking for a presidential line-item veto - so he can cut out earmarks and pork-barrel spending.
This should be a popular move, in the wake of the Cunningham and Abramoff scandals, and given the unprecedented growth of pork (in conjunction with the unprecedented growth of the deficit). But this administration hasn't exactly distinguished itself for its stand against governmental spending. President Bush doesn't make speeches about Congressional spending, his administration doesn't put pressure on Congress members to keep such things out of legislation, he has never vetoed a bill, or even threatened to veto a bill, because it contained an obscene amount of pork. All of these things have been used by past presidents, as their only way to affect the process. But not President Bush.
So what has he threatened to veto? Recently, he threatened to veto any legislation that would halt the Dubai Ports World deal. And his first ever threatened veto was of John McCain's amendment to a defense spending bill, making a firm stand against torture by U.S. personnel.
In the end, Mr. Bush did not carry out that threat. But he did say, when he was signing it, that he would interpret it ''in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president". And his new Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito, says that the president's intent when he signs a bill has equal weight with the Congress' intent in writing it. So much for a firm U.S. stand against torture.
So I ask again - what does President Bush really want the power to veto? Something he's never worried his head about? Or is he concerned that Congress seems to be remembering that they have Constitutional powers to act as a check on the president? Could it be that one of his aides has pointed out that Alito alone may not be sufficient to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp? Would he prefer to just remove any such limits on his actions before they can ever be made into law?
Damn it, I hate to react to everything in a negative way. I don't want to think of myself as a knee-jerk liberal, who automatically opposes everything everything this president does. But his record is so overwhelmingly awful. He's got a virtually unblemished record of expanding presidental power, to the detriment of American rights, the budget, our standing in the world...well, no point in going on.
On the positive side - he only has three more years. And future presidents could use a line-item veto in the way in which we all intend it - to cut outrageous spending on Congressional pet projects.
Of course, for that very reason, the thing is unlikely to pass.... *sigh*
This should be a popular move, in the wake of the Cunningham and Abramoff scandals, and given the unprecedented growth of pork (in conjunction with the unprecedented growth of the deficit). But this administration hasn't exactly distinguished itself for its stand against governmental spending. President Bush doesn't make speeches about Congressional spending, his administration doesn't put pressure on Congress members to keep such things out of legislation, he has never vetoed a bill, or even threatened to veto a bill, because it contained an obscene amount of pork. All of these things have been used by past presidents, as their only way to affect the process. But not President Bush.
So what has he threatened to veto? Recently, he threatened to veto any legislation that would halt the Dubai Ports World deal. And his first ever threatened veto was of John McCain's amendment to a defense spending bill, making a firm stand against torture by U.S. personnel.
In the end, Mr. Bush did not carry out that threat. But he did say, when he was signing it, that he would interpret it ''in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president". And his new Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito, says that the president's intent when he signs a bill has equal weight with the Congress' intent in writing it. So much for a firm U.S. stand against torture.
So I ask again - what does President Bush really want the power to veto? Something he's never worried his head about? Or is he concerned that Congress seems to be remembering that they have Constitutional powers to act as a check on the president? Could it be that one of his aides has pointed out that Alito alone may not be sufficient to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp? Would he prefer to just remove any such limits on his actions before they can ever be made into law?
Damn it, I hate to react to everything in a negative way. I don't want to think of myself as a knee-jerk liberal, who automatically opposes everything everything this president does. But his record is so overwhelmingly awful. He's got a virtually unblemished record of expanding presidental power, to the detriment of American rights, the budget, our standing in the world...well, no point in going on.
On the positive side - he only has three more years. And future presidents could use a line-item veto in the way in which we all intend it - to cut outrageous spending on Congressional pet projects.
Of course, for that very reason, the thing is unlikely to pass.... *sigh*
