by Mark Silva
Congress handed President Bush its first override of a veto today -- restoring a $23-billion water projects development act that the president had rejected as too costly.
This could be the first in a series of budget battles this fall as the president complains of excessive spending in a number of appropriations bills moving. But on the first veto, the House and Senate have prevailed -- marking the first time, in five presidential vetoes during two terms of the Bush administration, that the president has lost.
The Senate vote today was 74-19, including 34 Republicans who voted to override Bush. The House had voted 361-54 to override the president's veto.
The White House, aware the override was coming and attempting to downplay it, said earlier this week that Bush is "okay'' with the override.
Bush has wielded the veto pen sparingly. He has vetoed two stem-cell research bills, one children's health care bill and one war-spending bill -- rejecting it for the timeliness for troop withdrawals attached. And now Democratic leaders are preparing another $50-billion war bill with troop withdrawals as a condition of funding.
Today, it was a question of billions in hometown projects for congressmen nationwide.
. Hunter College political expert Kenneth Sherrill says: “It’s no surprise that so many Republicans voted to override the president’s veto. Many Republicans who are running for reelection in 2008 represent districts that have had drought or flooding problems.
"Flooding and droughts are serious issues in much of the country,'' he said. "People look to the government to solve problems of this sort. Members of Congress don’t want to be accused of having done nothing on these issues.''
Sherrill also suggests that something else could be happening: “It’s also an indicator that Republican members of Congress who are running for reelection are less and less worried about protecting a republican president who cannot run for reelection.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"ACTUALLY CONGRESS HANDED BUSH HIS SECOND VETO"
THE FIRST ONE WAS S BILL 1639 SECURE BORDERS, "ECONOMIC OPPORTUNUTY" AND THEN IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007. NO CONSOLIDATION OF THE ALL FOUR EXECUTIVE BRANCHES UNDER THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY AKA CHERTOF.
THEN THIS VETO!
Posted by: Roger Morris | November 8, 2007 4:40 PM
As if we needed any more evidence that Bush is bad for America. He is asking for 100 some odd billion so it can be wasted in Iraq (total projected at 2.4 TRILLION) but 23 billion to be spent to shore up our country’s infrastructure is over the line? Congress was right to do what is right for all Americans and not simply their political interests.
Posted by: Kevin | November 8, 2007 4:44 PM
The White House, aware the override was coming and attempting to downplay it, said earlier this week that Bush is "okay'' with the override.
I know I'm not politically saavy but...if he knew the override would happen, then why veto it in the first place? I need an explainer.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2007 4:52 PM
Maybe our esteemed and exalted Bush will pack up his bag of marbles and go home to Crawford sooner than expected.
Posted by: GW | November 8, 2007 4:59 PM
The President tried to hold down spending in this pork-laden bill, but the Democrats in Congress managed to get together long enough to override. So now we know who's really responsible for over-spending in Washington. Easy to get votes when the Congressmen buy them for one another with Pork, Pork, Pork...and the ones who really get "porked" are the taxpayers.
Posted by: Fillmore B. | November 8, 2007 5:25 PM
Now we just need Congress to make this a habit.
Posted by: Tom O | November 8, 2007 5:41 PM
The president should have been vetoing pork-laden bills throughout both of his terms in office. The reason he didn't veto many bills, by some accounts, is that he believed he could control Congress and get what he wanted from it by allowing Congress to have its way on other things.
That, to me, is an abdication of his oath and duty as President. It was and is his job to think about what he was approving, and to withhold his approval from those bills he deemed unwise and unconstitutional. There was plenty of unconstitutional stuff in legislation he signed, even apart from the awful stuff he proposed himself. There was certainly a great deal of fiscally irresponsible stuff that crossed his desk too – which also should have been given the axe.
Apparently, he now doesn't feel he can control Congress by giving it all it asks of him. Now, he has to resort to "log rolling" to coerce them into towing his line.
How pathetic.
Posted by: John W. | November 8, 2007 6:42 PM
Since it's a Mark Silva article, I'll remind everyone of the "Silva Rule": anytime Mark Silva quotes an "expert" in an article, that "expert" just happens to be a Democrat.
Sure enough, the "Hunter College political expert Kenneth Sherrill" who's so extensively quoted above is on record has having donated $250 to a Democrat running for the US Senate.
Mr. Silva's rolodex of experts leans so far to the left, I'm surprised it doesn't fall off his desk.
Posted by: Bruce | November 8, 2007 6:47 PM
Our bridges are collapsing, major cities are facing serious water issues, and we are neglecting our children's health. This bill was not PORK - pork is a bridge to serve an island of 50 people (Alaska), pork is not building up our infrastructure. We cannot and must not continue to neglect these critical foundations of our country and economy.
Posted by: Mary J | November 8, 2007 7:18 PM
[quote]
anytime Mark Silva quotes an "expert" in an article, that "expert" just happens to be a Democrat.
Sure enough, the "Hunter College political expert Kenneth Sherrill" who's so extensively quoted above is on record has having donated $250 to a Democrat running for the US Senate.
Posted by: Bruce | November 8, 2007 6:47 PM
[/quote]
Tell us, Bruce - can you provide PROOF POSITIVE that Mr. Sherrill IS A MEMBER of the Democratic Party? Because just giving $250 to ONE person's campaign DOES NOT make one a member of that candidate's party.
We await for the results of your research into Mr. Sherrill's known party affiliation.
Posted by: BC | November 8, 2007 10:34 PM