Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Opinion

Friday
Mar 19, 2010
Clear
Clear 64° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Spending bills

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."


Most Popular Stories
  1. Taxpayer liability may be lowballed
  2. Another federal incursion
  3. Only the private sector can create wealth
  4. Net neutrality
  5. Open court
  6. Immaculate conception, Washington style
  7. Opportunity knocks



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.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 9 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com 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 notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote on September 25, 2007 09:05 PM: 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.


Report abuse

tim wrote on September 25, 2007 03:29 PM: both republicans and democrats president included should look in the mirror when talking all that b.s. about spending,they all like to blame each other when we all know damm well they both have their hands in the cookie jar. but if it turns us against each other instead of them they win every time, every time!


Report abuse

John F wrote on September 25, 2007 12:07 PM: 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.


Report abuse

John wrote on September 25, 2007 10:18 AM: For the RJ this editorial is pretty balanced. Mostly anti Democrat, and a slap at the President and his fiscal imprudence. Of course, all fluff and no substance which is typical RJ. I do not know why the RJ refuses to set forth specific proposals for limiting government spending. Actually I do know why. It takes far less intellectual capacity in being a demagogue on this issue as opposed to make constructive proposals.


Report abuse

Mark Wilson wrote on September 25, 2007 08:57 AM: DaveR:



Uh, are you referring to that thing Al Gore invented?



Mark Wilson


Report abuse

Russ wrote on September 25, 2007 08:20 AM: Let's face it everything President Bush tries to do is too little too late. He should have been working on domestic issues starting 7 years ago. Not in the waning days of a totally failed presidency.


Report abuse

DaveR wrote on September 25, 2007 07:35 AM: Mark, Uh, you got the internet you wrote in on from the government.


Report abuse

Mark wrote on September 25, 2007 06:40 AM: What do the majority of taxpayers get for the huge amount of taxes paid to the federal government? I've never gotten a thing. This whole system needs to crash and burn.


Report abuse

Jon wrote on September 25, 2007 05:24 AM: 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.