The Latest Veto
Saith Peter:
Okay, Peter, I'll answer this in a short answer, and then in a longer answer.
Short answer: Good for him.
Long answer: Peter, I think it's a good move by President Bush. I'm not sure if you've been following this S-CHIP debate (which is at its core a political stunt in which Democrats are attempting to open the doors to a massive government expansion into socialized medicine); I see this spending bill as an extension of that fight. One of my few criticisms of President Bush has been his overwhelming eagerness to spend money; the fact that he's holding the line on such a massive spending bill is good news in my book.
Up until November of '06, I was frequently disillusioned with Republican leadership in Congress; since November of '06, I've been shocked at what is a complete lack of leadership from the Democrat majority. As much as I'd like to be civil in my description of their behavior, I have no choice but to echo President Bush, who said:
The behavior of the Democrats since they took control of the Legislative Branch has been embarrassing and shameful on every front: economic, social, political, diplomatic - the list goes on. Coupled to this spending bill is Congressman Rangel's massive proposed tax increase.
Apparently the Democrat leadership and their economic advisors were absent the day that basic economics was being taught in school. Right now, one dollar equals less than half a British pound, oil costs more than ninety dollars per barrel (though it's dropping at the moment, thank God), and American economic growth is expected to slow before it picks back up. Under these conditions, raising irrational punitive taxes against the rich (who are disproportionately responsible for the investments and industrial activity that leads Americans to prosper) and increasing deficit spending are the absolute worst things a government could do.
I hold no illusions that this veto by President Bush is apolitical; but beyond the political opposition, the spending bill proposed by the Democrat-controlled Congress is completely unacceptable, and probably filled with more pork than a Cracker Barrel stock room. I think that President Bush believes this himself, and he's responding responsibly. Unlike Democrats in Congress, President Bush understands that the spending bill represents our money, not theirs.
I'll be addressing some of the ways to improve America's economic situation in January during my very own State of the Union address, right here on the blog. More information on that tomorrow morning.
hey Fly,
What do you think of the President's latest veto?
Okay, Peter, I'll answer this in a short answer, and then in a longer answer.
Short answer: Good for him.
Long answer: Peter, I think it's a good move by President Bush. I'm not sure if you've been following this S-CHIP debate (which is at its core a political stunt in which Democrats are attempting to open the doors to a massive government expansion into socialized medicine); I see this spending bill as an extension of that fight. One of my few criticisms of President Bush has been his overwhelming eagerness to spend money; the fact that he's holding the line on such a massive spending bill is good news in my book.
Up until November of '06, I was frequently disillusioned with Republican leadership in Congress; since November of '06, I've been shocked at what is a complete lack of leadership from the Democrat majority. As much as I'd like to be civil in my description of their behavior, I have no choice but to echo President Bush, who said:
"The majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it's acting like a teenager with a new credit card... This year alone, the leadership in Congress has proposed to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides. Now, some of them claim that's not really much of a difference. The scary part is they seem to mean it."
The behavior of the Democrats since they took control of the Legislative Branch has been embarrassing and shameful on every front: economic, social, political, diplomatic - the list goes on. Coupled to this spending bill is Congressman Rangel's massive proposed tax increase.
Apparently the Democrat leadership and their economic advisors were absent the day that basic economics was being taught in school. Right now, one dollar equals less than half a British pound, oil costs more than ninety dollars per barrel (though it's dropping at the moment, thank God), and American economic growth is expected to slow before it picks back up. Under these conditions, raising irrational punitive taxes against the rich (who are disproportionately responsible for the investments and industrial activity that leads Americans to prosper) and increasing deficit spending are the absolute worst things a government could do.
I hold no illusions that this veto by President Bush is apolitical; but beyond the political opposition, the spending bill proposed by the Democrat-controlled Congress is completely unacceptable, and probably filled with more pork than a Cracker Barrel stock room. I think that President Bush believes this himself, and he's responding responsibly. Unlike Democrats in Congress, President Bush understands that the spending bill represents our money, not theirs.
I'll be addressing some of the ways to improve America's economic situation in January during my very own State of the Union address, right here on the blog. More information on that tomorrow morning.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home