Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Better late than never
A combative President George W. Bush gave his final State of the Union Speech Monday night. After rolling over for excessive and wasteful spending fostered by Republican majorities in the House and Senate during his first six years in office, he finally found his veto pen and promised to use it.
Bush called for a major crack-down on the pork barrel practices of Congress, saying he will veto any spending bill that does not cut in half the number and cost of congressional pet projects, known as “earmarks.” He followed up his speech with some action the next day when he issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to ignore earmarks that are not explicitly enacted into law.
This Order erases a common practice by which Congress inserts pet projects into nonbinding documents that accompany legislation and counts on government bureaucrats to treat those spending ideas with the force of law. The Bush plan, however, leaves nearly 12,000 earmarks approved by Congress last year untouched. The total tab for those earmarks totals about $17 billion.
On a night when Republicans and Democrats regularly rose from their seats to applaud particular favored passages in the President’s speech, though seldom together, the attack on earmarks evoked a nearly unanimous standing ovation. But after the speech was over, Democrats were quick to criticize the President for his threats against their precious earmarks. They noted that his tough stance comes only after they have taken control of the House and Senate, while he ignored the problem when Republicans were in charge.
It is a legitimate criticism, but the President finally has it right...even if it is a bit late in the game. Before Democrats decide to stake their election prospects for 2008 on maintaining their right to engage in pork barrel spending “just like the Republicans used to do” they might want to take a moment to look back at the election results in 2006. Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate after voters rightfully got fed up with the congressional addiction to frivolous projects like the infamous Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Overburdened taxpayers are not likely to be any more patient with Democrat porkers than they were with Republican porkers.
Had President Bush and the Republicans in the House and Senate embraced earmark reform five years ago they probably would not have been thrown out of power last year. Nevertheless, they do seem to “get it” now. As campaign slogans go, “Better Late Than Never” may not be a great one. But it sure beats “We Want OUR Turn To Rip You Off.”
Steve Gill is the host of a statewide radio talk show that airs on a dozen stations across Tennessee. His Web site is www.gillreport.com.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Mailing list sign-up
4137 Helena Bay Ct, Hermitage
Price: $214,900
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 3/2
325 Goodman Dr, Gallatin,
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
View More Homes
That some earmarks abuse the system & waste spending is certain, but they all don't. Occasionally, it is the only way for a politician to get a few bucks to fund something necessary, and it is typical of Bush-Dick not to object to a practice until the opposition has a chance to practice it.For instance, the rightwing airwaves now are full of talk complaining about "dynasty" & how we need to elect someone other than a Bush or a Clinton. Well, we did that in 2000 & in 2004, but then, they forced Bush down our throats. Only now that the option of a second Clinton is upon us, we hear these dynastic complaints.Yes, earmarks abuse the system, but they are small potatoes compared to the main reason that the Republican lost in 2006 and are losing today: The bloodiest, hugest pork in American history: The Republican's occupation of Iraq: SIX BILLION DOLLARS, SEVENTY AMERICAN LIVES, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY AMERICAN WOUNDS, FIFTEEN HUNDRED IRAQI LIVES, TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED IRAQI WOUNDS EACH MONTH.The Republicans want us to turn our eyes away from that, and the media--always friendly to conservatives--go along, but the wasted blood, the wasted money are everywhere.
Cry me a river! Earmarks are just wrong, R or D sponsored. Many of us have spoken out against them for a long time, especially when so-called conservatives vote for them or put them into bills.As for the Iraq war, it is the greatest turn-around in history from a loosing situation to a win for democracy in a region where it is sorely needed.Oh and "media--always friendly to conservatives--" made me LOL... Do you really believe that?Yes, cry me a river...
vchester, you truly can't believe we're actually bringing democracy to the middle east! omg, where have you been? and yes, the media is OWNED by companies that fund conservative candidates and they DO cater to them. you need to expand your reading material.
vchester: we were never told were going into Iraq to "spread democracy." We were told we were going in because a "giant mushroom cloud loomed on the horizon." Big diff IMO.
If you support the continued occupation of Iraq, then you should go there. Don't emulate Bush-Dick & cower while sending others to do the fighting.The bloodiest year of this occupation is 2007. It's not a success, and we continue to kill, maim, bleed, & die.The river is blood-red, Vches.
The earmarks should be illegal, and ALL expenditures should be voted on (in the light of day) by everyone in both houses. No more "teapot museums" at taxpayers expense w/o a full vote up or down. You guys want a "teapot museum" in your state, pay for it yourself. Thank you.
MJB, I don't agree with the war in Iraq and am not Bush's biggest fan, but do you really believe what you're saying? You think the President is a coward because he isn't in Iraq fighting himself? I didn't realize that was the duty of a President, I thought that was the job of the military.And some wonder why they are labelled the "looney left". Sheez!
Bush-Dick, wow! that's a so witty of you. is there an age restriction in here??? it seems to me that the only news channel that covers the republican race is Fox, CNN caters to the Dems. nothing new. i don't think anyone thought Iraq had nuclear weapons, Saddam definitely wanted some. they have found chenical weapons in Iraq since the start of the occupation, that's undeniable.
It would have carried much more weight if he didn't marry this position with giving away $150 Billion to "stimulate" the economy."What? Me Worry?"
"12601
Not true cheese, and welcome back by the way. CNN covers the Republicans, just not with the bias of Fox. :)
Good point.
You are only referring to big TV media. That is short-sighted. You should also save yourself time with debating MJB. Some people are too partisan to hold an objective view of anything. Never confuse the thoughts of Republicans or Democrats as thoughtful debate. They stay on the defensive. Have you ever noticed that if you say, "wow that Republican or Democrat really screwed that up
Diafante, I didn’t say that the president himself must fight the war, but that was certainly the case in previous eras. No one would respect a leader who didn’t take the front lines. In addition, the knowledge that you yourself could get hurt would certainly give any war-mongering leader pause. Is it any surprise that we live in the planet’s bloodiest times when military fighting has become most distanced from the “fighters”?As for my remark about Vches.’s emulating Bush-Dick, I was thinking of Vietnam, when both George W. Bush & Dick Cheney were avidly for the war, but pulled many strings to keep themselves from having to fight. I might also point out that Bush-Dick could encourage their children to join the military, so they could demonstrate having SOMETHING at stake in this never-ending bloodshed, but no, it’s our children—the children of the middle-class, the working-class, & the impoverished—who do the vast majority of the fighting, the maiming, the bleeding, & the dying.
Why does it matter if Bush or Cheney has a kid in the war? that's most ignorant argument i've ever heard. it has always been the middle class the working class that suffers during wartime, it's been that why since there was a class system. they have their legacies at stake in this war, maybe not a big thing to you, but to someone like Bush and Cheney it most definitely is.
oh, and thanks gd!
I am really sick of hearing the "If you want the war go there yourself" argument. It really has no merit. Unless MJB wishes to change the constitution so the average citizen has the right to declare war on a foreign nation. Then, by all means, go!No problem cheese. It's been a while.
cheese. The republican debate last night was on...what channel?
the last I knew of was that every soldier over in Iraq went on their on accord. All the ones I have talked to have gone again and again,saying it is the right thing to do.
Why shouldn't those who declare war have to sacrifice for it, Cheese? If there's no such thing as a free lunch, then there's certainly no such thing as a free war.I'm glad that we agree that the wealthy & powerful get the middle- & working-classes & the impoverished to fight their wars for them. We need to overthrow this genocidal class system, and, doing so, would eliminate a major cause for wars.Diafante, your argument has a large hole. This isn't about who has the right to declare war. This is about who supports the war. It is the essence of cowardice to support a war but avoid fighting & expecting others to kill, maim, bleed, & die.Listen: If, five years ago, everyone who was gung-ho for this invasion & occupation had volunteered, then we wouldn't've needed this temporary "surge". You chickenhawks could have found Saddam Hussein in days, could've protected all the museums, and could've helped each Iraqi gain freedom. You chickenhawks could've been a human wall keeping out al-Qaeda.