Comments (9) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Spending bills
Tools
Updated: Apr. 9, 2012 | 1:45 p.m.
The Democratic Congress, its approval rating below the president's in some polls, has yet to pass any one of a dozen pending appropriations bills.
With the federal government's new fiscal year set to begin Monday, Congress must either burn the midnight oil this week, pass "continuing resolutions" to keep Washington running at current spending levels or risk a "government shutdown."
On Monday, President Bush criticized his congressional foes for their inaction and warned that Democrats may try to wrap all 12 spending bills into one giant "omnibus" measure, which would make it easier to lard up the federal budget and override a potential veto.
"If they think that by waiting until just before they leave for the year to send me a bill that is way over budget and thicker than a phone book, if they think that's going to force me to sign it, it's not," said Mr. Bush. "This would be bad for our country, it would be harmful for our economy, it would be unfair for the taxpayers."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded in predictable fashion, flashing the well-worn class-warfare card that he keeps in his breast pocket. "The only things harmful to our economy and unfair for the taxpayers are President Bush's misguided priorities -- billions for Iraq and tax breaks for multi-millionaires," he said. Sen. Reid went on to argue that "after running up $3 trillion in new debt" Mr. Bush has no business "lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities."
Sen. Reid's latter point has merit. During his first term, Mr. Bush did next to nothing to demonstrate any devotion to fiscal restraint. But the notion that a Democratic president -- with a Democratic Congress -- would put the clamps on runaway federal budget growth is better left to the funny pages.
If the president is now a convert to the battle over injecting sanity into the Washington budget debate, better late than never. In the meantime, let's hope his actions match his rhetoric if congressional big spenders decide to force a budget showdown.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Jon,
The president is going to veto the SCHIP bill because it depends on a source of income that could quickly dry up...increased taxes on tobacco products. What happens if the number of smokers dramatically decreases? Where to the funds for SCHIP come from then? A lot of people are sick and tired of the "for the children" BS. That's how question 5 got passed yet children are NOT allowed in bars and taverns. One simple word describes all of the "for the children" chicken littles....B.S.
Thank you, John! And for the record, we are not the same person. Conservatives love to talk about cutting spending, but they never get specific about what to cut. To them the defense budget is a sacred cow, and most of the rest of the budget can't be cut either because the spending is mandated by law or is too politically popular. Mark Wilson, would you like to cut Medicare out of the budget? That would save a lot of money, but how do you plan on paying a doctor when you reach retirement age? No private insurance company will cover a senior citizen. Mark, do you drive to work on the interstate every day? Do the armed forces protect you every day? Do your kids attend school or college? Ever spend a day in Red Rock Canyon or at Zion Canyon? Is the food you eat safe? What on earth makes you think you don't benefit directly from the tax money you send to Washington? Not to mention all the indirect benefits we all receive.
If you look at the federal budget you will see that there isn't enough spending available to be cut to make a serious dent in our national debt and the reason is the overwhelming majority of the people don't want to cut defense spending or popular entitlement programs. The rest of the budget - with the exception of the interest on our national debt - doesn't amount to much. Let's rid ourselves of all the demagoguery on both sides and get serious about fixing our fiscal mess. We can start by letting the Bush tax cuts die a well-deserved death.
DaveR:
Uh, are you referring to that thing Al Gore invented?
Mark Wilson
I'm sick of this "class warfare" talking point. Can't your editorial board think for themselves, or must they simply do what their handlers tell them to do?
Seriously, Democrats are no more guilty of "class warfare" then republicans. While we pour billions into an unpopular war, and the rich are saving billions on ill-conceived tax cuts, the poor are largely ignored.
In fact, the President has announced his intention to veto the reauthorization of SCHIP-- a program that provides health care to 6 million poor children-- because Congress wants to expand that program. The President's reasoning: It's one step closer to federalized medicine.
How convenient. So let's punish millions of children because our President is also "playing the class warfare card".
It goes both ways.