Bush Takes on Big Senate Spending - Statement on Pres’ Responsible Highway and Transit Budget

Bush-Cheney '04 ^ | Feb 12, 2004 | Bush-Cheney '04

[PhiKapMom]

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Statement Regarding the President’s Responsible Highway and Transit Budget

The President has charted a course for cutting the budget deficit in half in five years. We must fund our priorities of winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, and creating jobs -- and we must hold the line on spending in other areas.

The President's budget proposes a responsible $256 billion in highway and transit spending, which represents a 21 percent increase over the previous six-year period and a responsible approach to improve highway safety and curb congestion. The President also has made clear that he will oppose a highway bill that increases the gas tax, taps the general Treasury, or hides the true cost to taxpayers.

With passage of an excessive $318 billion highway funding bill, the Senate today missed an important opportunity to rein in spending. It is disappointing that the bill significantly exceeds the President's budget and fails to meet the responsible principles outlined by the Administration.

The President is committed to work with Congress to pass a highway bill that adheres to principles of spending restraint. The President's senior advisers will recommend a veto of any highway bill that includes excessive spending and violates these principles, including the bill passed by the Senate.

[PhiKapMom]

It's time for conservatives to defend Bush as he attacks highway pork spending! Contact your Senators and Congressman today to demand an end to pork spending!

[PhiKapMom]

Be sure and watch the MUST SEE:

New Bush Campaign Video -- John Kerry: Unprincipled

http://www.georgewbush.com/unprincipled/

[KantianBurke]

The President also has made clear that he will oppose a highway bill that increases the gas tax, taps the general Treasury, or hides the true cost to taxpayers.

Good to hear. However he should have followed his own advice when calculating the true cost of the "free pills for granny" act.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Too little too late. Dubya the drunken sailor has already shown by his past record that this is nothing more than an election ploy to shore up conservative support.

[Bikers4Bush]

"We must fund our priorities of winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, and creating jobs -- and we must hold the line on spending in other areas."

Did the medicare spending fiasco have anything to do with winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, or creating jobs? How about the leave no child behind spending abomination? The funding for the NEA?

Just checking.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for that link ! ...

"Special interests ... Special interests ... Special interests ... Special interests ..."

[NeoCaveman]

The President is committed to work with Congress to pass a highway bill that adheres to principles of spending restraint. The President's senior advisers will recommend a veto of any highway bill that includes excessive spending and violates these principles, including the bill passed by the Senate.

My "Republican" Senators were part of this bank buster and said that the Administration's bill was too small. My former "Republican" congress critter Steve Lautoret, I have since moved, echoded Voinovich and DeWine.

I know we have to wait a while until this gets through the House and the Confence committee but.....

Veto this, Mr. President

[WOSG]

Bush-bashers are never satisfied.

[familyofman]

"The President has charted a course for cutting the budget deficit in half in five years."

After you cut a deficit in half - what do you have? Answer = a deficit. That means W expects deficits for his entire second term. And he wants us to regard him as a fiscal conservative. I don't think so.

How about a constitutional ammendment to balance the budget?

[Mudboy Slim]

"...this is nothing more than an election ploy to shore up conservative support."

Well, we oughtta support it then, if we hope to see more fiscal discipline in the future. If not, we will be surrendering to the RINOs who want to outbid the RATS on every spending bill. If we're gonna continue to disparage Dubyuh fer outta-control spending, we better be prepared to support him when he does the right thing.

FReegards...MUD

[hobbes1]

Deficits are far more conservative in Principle, that Surpluses.

Deficits tell the American people that their government spends too much.....

Is it better that government should have a collar on spending, or extra money in its pcokets.

[Kaslin]

When will people like you learn that the president is not allowed to spend. Congress does, so put the blame on where it belongs. All the president can do is veto, but Cnogress has the power to override the veto. So what good does that do?

[familyofman]

"Deficits are far more conservative in Principle, that Surpluses."

Since when - you don't recall the Contract With America, do you? Balanced budgets are a lot more conservative than deficits.

[texasflower]

Nothing will make you happy. Would you not be more comfortable somewhere else?

My kids can recommend some nice fun game sites that could help keep your mind off of the President.

[Kaslin]

Cnogress=Congress

My fingers are dyslectic

[reformedliberal]

The Senate has laid a trap for Bush, here.

Their statement says that they are *revenue neutral* and have followed the administration's guidelines on this bill. They are touting it as a jobs bill.

Bush vetoes and they say he is vetoing jobs. Bush doesn't veto and it becomes *read my lips* for the fiscal conservatives.

Lose, lose.

[Dolphy]

Did the medicare spending fiasco have anything to do with winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, or creating jobs? How about the leave no child behind spending abomination? The funding for the NEA?

Yes, if the President is going to be in a position to take an uncompromising stand on things like the war on terror, tax cuts, judicial nominees, etc. he was going to have to compromise on other issues.

[Bikers4Bush]

BS, he hasn't truly pushed for any of his judicial nominees and he has a majority in both the house and senate.

None of those these were compromises. When you make something your own agenda it's no longer a compromise.

[Grampa Dave]

You are right on target with this assessment:

Well, we oughtta support it then, if we hope to see more fiscal discipline in the future. If not, we will be surrendering to the RINOs who want to outbid the RATS on every spending bill. If we're gonna continue to disparage Dubyuh fer outta-control spending, we better be prepared to support him when he does the right thing.

[WhiteGuy]

" he was going to have to compromise on other issues "


It is unfortunate when compromise replaces leadership.