President Bush makes a statement, accompanied by members of the House Republican leadership, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2007 (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
by Mark Silva
President Bush, who met with Republican House members this morning, is beating the budget drum in a campaign to get Democratic leaders to send him spending bills he can sign.
"The leadership that's on the Hill now cannot get that job done,'' the president said, framing the issue in a way that plays into the election year ahead.
"Congress is not getting its work done,'' Bush told reporters at the White House following the meeting. "We're near the end of the year, and there really isn't much to show for it.
"The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations, and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq,'' Bush said. "And yet there's important work to be done...
Congress "has not been able to send a single annual appropriations bill to my desk, and that's the worst record for a Congress in 20 years,'' the president said.
"They've also passed an endless series of tax increases,'' he said. "You know, they proposed tax increases in the farm bill, the energy bill, the small business bill, and of course, the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program)... They haven't seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it. In other words, they believe in raising taxes, and we don't.
"After going alone and going nowhere, Congress should instead work with the administration on a bill that puts poor children first; a bill that will take care of the poor children that the initial bill said we got to do; a bill that would stop diverting money to adults,'' he said of the SCHIP debate. "We want a bill that enrolls the more than 500,000 poor children currently eligible for the program who are not a part of the program.''
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), told the Senate today that the SCHIP debate should not become a partisan contest.
"This debate is about our commitment to millions of American men and women, who work hard every day, pay taxes, and care for their children, but who stay awake at night worrying because they can’t afford the cost of a sudden illness,'' Kennedy said. " We have it within our power to make sure that parents for 10 million children no longer have that worry. We have it within our grasp to see that 10 million American children will grow up healthy and become strong, productive citizens who fulfill our greatest hopes for them.
"That is what this Children’s Health Insurance debate is all about,'' he said. "Healthy lives for children. Peace of mind for parents. Congress acting for the common good. ''
Bush promises another veto if he sees another SCHIP bill like the first one.
And, warrning of a veto if Congress attempts to tie military funding to needed spending bills, the president said: "It's hard to imagine a more cynical political strategy than trying to hold hostage funding for our troops in combat and our wounded warriors in order to extract $11 billion in additional social spending.... I will veto such a three-bill pileup. Congress should pass each bill one at a time in a fiscally responsible manner that reflects agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branch...'
"I know some on the Democrat side didn't agree with my decision to send troops in, but it seems like we ought to be able to agree that we're going to support our troops who are in harm's way. I know the members feel that way, standing with me. I hope the leadership feels that way, and they ought to give me a bill that funds, among other things, bullets, and body armor, and protection against IEDs, and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle...
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | October 30, 2007 11:12 AM
"Congress is not getting its work done,'
Not until we remove every republican from the house and senate.
Posted by: bill r. | October 30, 2007 11:15 AM
The last congress, led by a GOP majority, didn't finish these spending bills. Small thing worth remembering.
Posted by: Joe | October 30, 2007 11:16 AM
Good to see Bush ocntinue to be tough on tax-and-spend policies. The last two years the GOP ran Congress, spending was reigned in, with increases in the 2 to 3 percent range.
The Democrats want to spend, spend, spend; expand, expand, expand; tax, tax, tax; and waste time on frivolous matters like condemning Turkey 92 years AFTER a fact.
But that is OK. The longer the Dems play this game, the better the chances become for the GOP in 2008!
Posted by: John D | October 30, 2007 11:23 AM
John D, can you cite a source for your 2-3% spending fantasy? How about this one, from August 2007 "It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever." http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/12/bush-the-biggest-taxer-in-world-history/ As for a GOPer winning in next year, only Katherine Harris could pull off that stunt again---and she's gone.
Posted by: Doomiss | October 30, 2007 11:38 AM
John D,
Reigned in when? Before or after racking up the biggest deficits in history? Before or after getting fed funding of the infamous bridge to nowhere? Before or after nixing health insurance for kids?
Can't the GOP supply you with new material?!
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | October 30, 2007 11:46 AM
Tax and spend is what the government is supposed to do. Tax-cut and spend is what the Bush administration has done. You want less government, less spending, less taxes...i may disagree but i understand your argument. but you cant cut taxes, then go one multi billion dollar nation building sprees. It doesnt make fiscal sense, it doesnt even make common sense. but coming from the bush administration, what else can one expect?
Posted by: MattA | October 30, 2007 11:48 AM
This no good Congress is wasting time investigating corruption at the highest levels. Imagine, the nerve of this Congress to try to find out how American Taxpayers dollars were lost when pallets stacked with freshly minted money vanished. To terrorists? Only a wasteful do-nothing Congress would try to find out. These DemocRats must go! No thanks to the drive-by media.
Jerry Black
Shelbyville
Posted by: Jerry Black | October 30, 2007 11:49 AM
Its true, tax revenues are at record highs, and with no new taxes. Which proves the tax cuts GW put in place are working well. The wars have increased spending on the GOP watch, but that is NOT to be apologized for.
Posted by: Mike | October 30, 2007 12:00 PM
Doomiss and Kenny:
Don't bother to ask Johnny to cite his sources - us Loony Lefties are not good enough. We should believe everything he says.
Posted by: BobinATL | October 30, 2007 12:25 PM
Tax revenues are not at all time highs in real dollars. Regardless of how you feel about the war, it still has to be paid for -- I would think that doing so would not be at the expense of current gov't programs. If the taxpayers believe in the war, they should pay for it - not take the money from other places. A combination of refusing to compromise on major issues (veto threats) and working around the system has made Congress all but irrelevant on many issues. Now we live in a democracy where the government ignores the wishes of the people.
Posted by: Matt | October 30, 2007 12:43 PM
Mike,
Tax revenues are at their highest levels . . .
Oh really. And where did that tax revenue come from? A SIGNIFICANT increase in the tax revenue from CORPORATIONS who were making record profits.
It had NOTHING to do with Republican fantasy (lie) that decreasing taxes on individuals increases the tax revenue from individuals.
Posted by: dogjudge | October 30, 2007 12:55 PM
"In other words, they believe in raising taxes, and we don't."
I think the Prez has this wrong...
in other words they believe in paying for the programs they want. Not putting it on the Federal charge account and making it someone elses problem.
Posted by: Carl L | October 30, 2007 1:09 PM
"The House of "Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations, and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq,'' Bush said. "And yet there's important work to be done..."
Unlike the Republican Congress that would take up issues like Flag burning and gun rights before every election. Not because they could accomplish anything... they just needed to "energize the base"
Why should congress exercise their oversight? King George wants a return to the good old days of a Republican Majority... all the troops and money you want with no questions asked.
Posted by: Carl L | October 30, 2007 1:12 PM
Jerry Black
Shelbyville
Posted by: Jerry Black | October 30, 2007 11:49 AM
Are you still feuding with Springfield?
Posted by: C. Montgomery Burns | October 30, 2007 2:03 PM
Matt & Mike: I'm sorry, but your postings exemplifies just how pervasive the Administration's "smoke & mirrors" tacits are and why they're still working despite all logic to the contrary.
This very morning the AP reports that the Congress was finishing putting together funding bills to present to the President for signature. This includes funding for the wars (even though the actual money currently going to the wars won't "run out" for several months); fund the S-Chip program; as well as money to double the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the goverment agency in charge of product safety; y'know, like toys with lead in them?)
This President, this same morning, uses (abuses?) his perogative as Prez to call a press conference to declare "Congress is not getting it's work done; declares "The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations...", and yet calls on Congress to "pass each bill one at a time in a fiscally responsible manner that reflects agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branch..." Talk about a sleight-of-hand!
Did anyone catch the news today that the chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, WITH THE BACKING OF THE WHITE HOUSE, is telling Congress that it doesn't want the funds FOR MANPOWER AND ENFORCEMENT, because "the increase in complaints would so overwhelm the commission that true safety issues would go unrecognized in the process."
Has anyone read the reports since the first S-Chip veto, that the President was citing "false" numbers about coverage and cost, and scaring everyone away from a "government-run medical insurance program"? HELLO!?! WHAT ARE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID????
By the way, do ALL the troops finally have the body armour and "mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles" they were supposed to have been getting over the last few years of fighting? Oh, that's right, THEY STILL DON'T!!! The vehicles have still not shipped out, and troops are still writing home to request their families to purchase helmets, night-vision goggles and SILLY STRING TO DETECT TRIPWIRES!!! And yet, the Defense budget calls for A STEALTH BOMBER THAT CAN DROP A BUNKER-BUSTER!!! Gee, I wonder what that's for?
This President is the one threatening to veto funding bills. This President is the one resposible for not funding the war, the S-Chip, the government. All his finger pointing at Congress shows is that he has nothing better to offer and "it's my way or the highway!" That's called "agreement" between the branches???
God, please start impeachment procedings NOW!
Posted by: pearlywhite | October 30, 2007 2:15 PM
Here are some links and info, Bobin and Doomiss:
United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)[2]
United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.6 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/2005/10/the_myth_of_bus.html
Now, I would prefer to see some smaller increases than $100 to $200 billion a year. But, overall spending has been impacted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hopefully, if things continue to get better in Iraq (the lowest number of attacks and U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq in several years this month, but you won't find that in the Swamp, will we Mark?) and we can begin to draw down (yes, that means begin leaving the country), the costs can wind down too and begin cutting down on any budget increases, and perhaps even some actual CUTS, for the next several years.
Posted by: John D | October 30, 2007 2:45 PM
Ummmm, Johnny? From your source:
"The two most idotic parts of spending are probably agriculture and spending on the Environmental Protection Agency." Yep - sounds like a real non-partisan site to me. Also blames Democrats for all the non-defense spending. Anyone who considers the EPA idiotic has to have an agenda of their own.
Is the cost of the idiotic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq contained in the budget?? Isn't that under a seperate spending bill that does NOT count towards the budget?
Posted by: BobinATL | October 30, 2007 3:07 PM
"BUSH SPEAKS" DICK CHENEY IS ON A HUNT, I'M NOT REALLY DOING ANYTHING EXCEPT VETOEING A BUNCH OF DEMOCRATIC APPROPRIATIONS BILLS. CONDI IS KEEPING CONGRESS AT BAY WITH A LOT OF MISSTEPS. SECRETARY GATES, WELL HE'S DOING EVERYTHING DONALD COULDN'T DO AND THEN SOME.
SO I GUESS I WILL WAKE UP AND BLAME CONGRESS FOR LAURA TELLING ME NO NO NEVER NEVER UH UH UHH! CALL CONDI SHE ISN'T DOING ANYTHING BUT RUNNING FROM HENRY WAXMAN, AND THE AUTHORITY I GAVE HER THAT SHE WASN'T SUPPOSE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT.
HECK AMERICA, JUST ANOTHER 455 DAYS TO BLUFF MY WAY FROM BEING IMPEACHED. YA'LL CAN RECOVER FROM A 3.0 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. HECK BLAME IT ON CONGRESS, BLAME IT ON HARRY, OR BETTER YET BLAME IT ON NANCY.
SHOULD OF IMPEACHED HIM! INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THEM TO GO ON HUNTING EXPEDITIONS WITH GENERAL LEE!
Posted by: Roger Morris | October 30, 2007 3:44 PM
Bobin, I was more concerned about the budget increases, not the person's beliefs. The link does accurately look at the increases.
Now, I do not agree with his comments about EPA being idiotic. While I don't always agree with EPA rules and regulations there is a need for such a government agency.
In regard to agriculture well perhaps the Dept. of Agriculture is an agency that can go by the wayside. I wouldn't call it idiotic, but I also wouldn't consider it an agency we must have.
But glad you looked at the link.
And dogjudge, corporate profits are up largely because the economy has been growing the past five-plus years. A growing economy goes hand-in-hand with tax cuts. Tax increases usually contract the economy because people and businesses spend less money. The less money they spend, the less revenue they generate.
Posted by: John D | October 30, 2007 4:28 PM
What an outrage! Bush is the one causing ALL of the problems.
IMPEACH!
Posted by: Mark | October 30, 2007 5:00 PM
"In regard to agriculture well perhaps the Dept. of Agriculture is an agency that can go by the wayside. I wouldn't call it idiotic, but I also wouldn't consider it an agency we must have."
-John D
John D,
Looks like a lovely day to go down to Jack in the Box for a burger. Enjoy!
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | October 30, 2007 5:06 PM
Anyone else sick and tired of seeing this fool behind a podium? Or "behind" the troops? A schmuck, who never humped a clic. F*ck-m.
Posted by: RVN11B10 | October 30, 2007 10:04 PM
What a strange way of twisting the process: It is NOT up to House members to send Bush only bills that "he can sign". It is for the House members to send up the best bills possible--culminating from their knowledge, conscience, and input from constituents. Bush may have problems with the part arising from input by constiuents across the country--since he is out of touch with about 76% of us. The house needs to send Bush the best bills possible, let him veto or not, then he can give an explanation. There still is a co-equal quality to the legislative and executive branches. Does congress need to be reminded of this fact?
Posted by: Vivian | October 30, 2007 11:19 PM