Bush is against earmarks.....now

tbone · 02-06-2007, 01:46 PM

The irony in this is just amazing. The GOP had control of Congress for 6 years under Bush and he never once asked them to stop earmarks. Now the Democrats have control and he thinks this is a huge problem. Don't get me wrong, I think earmarks need to go away, just the timing is very ironic since he knows any earmarks will no longer benefit the GOP support base.

Bush also pressed Congress to tackle the spending dilemma posed by Social Security and Medicare, and the running controversy over legislative earmarks.

He held up a bundle of papers more than one-foot deep, bound in yellow tape. The roughly 13,000 earmarks, generally considered pork-barrel spending intended to benefit one project in one congressional district included in 2005 spending, would fill a similar stack, and that 90% never were included in legislation, Bush said.

"Here's what they look like," the president said.

He said they are not voted on, are not signed as legislation, but "they have the force of law."

Members of Congress, he said, have "got to do something about earmarks and they've got to work with the executive branch" in giving the president a "line-item" veto, or the ability to approve parts of legislation, while vetoing other elements — a step that would increase the president's power over the budget.

Bush insists balanced budget within reach - Los Angeles Times

Thorgrim · 02-06-2007, 02:08 PM

The GOP are acting like total hypocrits, no way!

The "party of principle" is just an act for suckers

DosEquis · 02-06-2007, 02:35 PM

A line item veto is not the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is to introduce the bill in a final form. It gets approved or turned down. No adding to it, and no attaching unrelated bullshit, such as a bridge to no where stuck on a bill funding soldiers.

Donkey® · 02-06-2007, 02:38 PM

1 Item...1 bill.

kinggovernor · 02-06-2007, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A line item veto is not the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is to introduce the bill in a final form. It gets approved or turned down. No adding to it, and no attaching unrelated bullshit, such as a bridge to no where stuck on a bill funding soldiers.

Scrum · 02-06-2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A line item veto is not the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is to introduce the bill in a final form. It gets approved or turned down. No adding to it, and no attaching unrelated bullshit, such as a bridge to no where stuck on a bill funding soldiers.

Agreed.

Hilarious that he is so against these now that they don't work in his parties favor. As if it's suddenly unconstitutional now that they don't work for him.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-06-2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A line item veto is not the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is to introduce the bill in a final form. It gets approved or turned down. No adding to it, and no attaching unrelated bullshit, such as a bridge to no where stuck on a bill funding soldiers.

kinggovernor · 02-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

1 Item...1 bill.

I think that might take too long, but any riders after voting should not be allowed.

I guess it depends on your definition of 1 item

Kytro · 02-06-2007, 05:43 PM

All items in legislation should be related in a logical manner.

JaJae · 02-06-2007, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

All items in legislation should be related in a logical manner.

I agree. And I think it's ridiculous for Bush to take the moral high ground here and try to stop it now.

It's nice that someone of authority and power is saying something, but too little too late.