Posted on 12/15/2006 8:14:08 AM PST by Hadean
Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- George W. Bush, who went longer than any president since Thomas Jefferson before using his veto power, may wield that authority next year to help re-establish Republicans' reputation for fiscal discipline and unify the party's political base.
Republican leaders are encouraging Bush, who is facing a hostile Congress for the first time in his presidency, to oppose Democratic spending plans. They also want him to threaten vetoes over legislation that would order Medicare to negotiate drug discounts with pharmaceutical makers, rescind energy-industry tax incentives and promote stem-cell research.
``We're going to end up with bills that we're not going to like,'' said Candida Wolff, Bush's assistant for legislative affairs. ``The strongest tool we have is the veto threat.''
In the past, the president ``could count on congressional Republicans to stop most measures that he disliked,'' said John Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. ``Now he can count on the Democrats to send him bills that he does not want.''
While Democrats say they will enforce spending discipline, Republicans will be on the lookout for measures the president can cast as budget-busters in veto messages. The goal is to counter the criticism he and Republican congressional leaders received, both within the party and outside it, during their six years of undisputed control.
`Lost Their Brand'
``Republicans have completely lost their brand as the party of fiscal discipline,'' said Patrick Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who is now president of the Club for Growth, a Washington-based group that backs small-government candidates.
With Bush in the White House and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, total government spending reached a 12- year high of 20.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2006, up from 18.4 percent in 2000.
From a surplus of $127 billion when Bush took over, the federal budget swung to a deficit that reached a record $413 billion in 2004. The deficit, currently $248 billion, is projected to begin rising again in 2009, according to the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Vetoing Democratic bills, said Toomey, would give Bush an opportunity ``to prove that the Democrats are the big spenders.''
`Moral Boundary'
Bush's sole veto so far came on July 19, when he successfully blocked legislation that would have expanded embryonic stem-cell research. He said the measure crossed a ``moral boundary'' by relying on cells from human embryos. Overriding a presidential veto requires two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate.
There's precedent for presidents resorting to more vetoes when congressional control shifts. Since the end of World War II, only 64 of 351 vetoes were issued when the president's party held the White House and Capitol Hill.
Presidents often use veto threats to secure last-minute concessions. Bills that are actually vetoed typically fall into two categories: those deemed budget-busters or unwise uses of federal funds, and those a president considers philosophically unpalatable.
Because Democrats campaigned on an expansive plan to aid the middle class, Republican fiscal traditionalists are especially anxious to have Bush oppose their rivals' spending plans.
Allan Hubbard, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Bush will take a hard line on spending next year. ``He would very seriously look at vetoing'' bills that exceed budget targets, Hubbard said.
Same-Sex Partnerships
Budget hawks aren't the only ones calling for a return of the veto. Social-issue conservatives want Bush to veto the stem- cell bill again if Democrats manage to get it to his desk; self- described family-values advocates want Bush to kill any measures that would add sexual orientation to the list of federal hate crimes, repeal limits on homosexuals in the military or grant legal rights to same-sex partnerships.
For the moment, Bush is talking compromise rather than confrontation. The extent to which he resorts to vetoes will depend on whether bipartisan coalitions can be built around some bills -- and whether Democrats find it more politically advantageous to demonstrate a desire to govern or to engage in running ideological duels with the president.
House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, 66, wants to expand college aid, make health care more affordable and provide new retirement-savings incentives, costly items that could trigger a showdown with the White House.
`Looking for Opportunities'
``Democrats will be looking for opportunities to force Bush into unpopular vetoes,'' said Nolan McCarty, a political scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey. ``This will undoubtedly harden the partisan divisions.''
Other issues that might trigger clashes are abortion, limits on terrorist surveillance and moves to repeal Bush's tax cuts.
Big domestic spending bills will be a flash point.
``If the Democrats try to push through a very expensive agenda that will require very large tax increases, then they're setting Bush up for a series of vetoes, each of which will probably improve his approval ratings,'' said Michael Franc, director of congressional relations at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington organization that backs limited government.
``We have principles, and we're not just going to roll over on our principles,'' Wolff said.
Horse, meet the barn door.
This president and the last 6 Republican congresses have done more to destroy that reputation than any Democrat. The idea that they have suddenly 'seen the light' is laughable.
George W. Bush, who went longer than any president since Thomas Jefferson before using his veto power, may wield that authority next year to help re-establish Republicans' reputation for fiscal discipline and unify the party's political base.
Oh my....sides hurt....need to....quit laughing....!!!!!
Bush...veto...mmmkay...
Thanks for the Friday laugh.
He didn't do anything to stop the outrageous and out-of-control Republican spending, why should he do anything to stop the outrageous and out-of-control Democrat spending?
Went to the bank to withdraw some of that political capital and guess what, It wasn't there any more. What else do we have? Oh yeah, veto. Let's try to spend some of that.
Why is he waiting until now to show fiscal restraint?
>>Bush May Use Vetoes to Reclaim Republicans' Fiscal Reputation<<
My mother would suggest that I say nothing in a situation like this.
The Pres should explain why he didn't use the "veto" on the spenders in his own party.
Might.
Should.
Would.
Could.
(sigh)
I voted for him twice in the general election....both times I held my nose....
.....I would probably vote for him again if the Dims put up their usual loosers....and he could run again..
...but please...NOW your going to use your veto power????
Sorry, too late.
The only thing I will say here is that it's time for the fiscal conservatives to educate the religious conservatives, in a kindly, constructive way.
Contrary to the Catholic bishops and other religious spokesmen, Great Society social programs have done little or nothing to help the poor, and they have corrupted them morally. It would have been far better to lower taxes and spending and give more through charitable organizations.
Money spent by big government is money that is largely wasted on the salaries and perks of a huge bureaucratic establishment. Hardly any of it gets to the poor, and what does is used mostly to buy their votes. Not a good way of helping the cause of social justice.
Social conservatives need to be taught about this, and in return fiscal conservatives need to support social conservatives where it counts--in particular the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that our tyrant judges have done so much to destroy.
This is why I don't think one party should control Congress and have the President. Our government was designed for the branches to check each other, not work together. Bush was letting Congress spend like a drunken sailor as long as it was in his party's control. Now, let the veto pen ink flow!
Bush was letting Congress spend like a drunken sailor as long as it was in his party's control
Change that to "Bush was encouraging Congress....."
;)
This could be like the man who said that his wife's credit cards had been stolen. When asked if he had cancelled them he said no, because the thief was spending less than his wife was.
Too late; I won't be fooled again. I'll support conservatives, but not the Republican Party, for a long time. A good eight years of fiscal discipline might change my mind, though.
It's long overdue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.