"This bill lacks fiscal discipline."-Bush

[Neil D]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush delivered his threatened veto of a $23-billion water bill Friday, but Congress is virtually certain to reverse it in the first override of a Bush veto.

And Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress are moving closer to a federal budget showdown that could result in more vetoes.

The House and Senate are expected to move swiftly next week to override Bush's veto of a bill loaded with water-related projects sought by members of both parties, from shoring up California's levees to protecting the Gulf Coast from hurricanes.

In a statement accompanying his veto, Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said, "I am 100% confident that we can override this veto."

The defiant bipartisan response to the veto underscores the difficulty the president faces in his new zeal to hold down federal spending, especially when it affects highly visible construction projects cherished by lawmakers.

"This will be the first veto this Congress has overridden, and it was all about getting parochial water projects back to their home districts," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

The bill would authorize more than 900 projects, such as restoration in the Florida Everglades and the replacement of seven Depression-era locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers that farm groups say is crucial for shipping grain.

For California, the bill authorizes $1.3 billion for 54 projects, including $106 million to strengthen the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees, $25 million for revitalizing the concrete-bound Los Angeles River and $38 million for replenishing sand at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, a project that supporters say would protect coastal residents from storms.

It is the fifth bill that Bush has vetoed -- the fewest by any president since James A. Garfield, who was shot in 1881 after four months in office and died weeks later. Bush has vetoed two bills that would have expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell research, a bill to pay for the Iraq war that included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and a bill that would have expanded a children's health insurance program. The four vetoes were sustained.

The Water Resources Development Act passed the House 381-40 and the Senate 81-12, far more than the two-thirds needed to make the measure law over the president's objections. The override would be the first since 1998, when Congress reversed President Clinton's veto of $287 million worth of military construction projects from a spending bill.

"Nothing seems as dear to members of Congress as their water projects," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

Bixby expects that Bush, with support from congressional Republicans, will wield more influence over the appropriations bills. "Bush has a willing and sufficient minority with him to sustain his vetoes -- so long as it isn't a water project," he said.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), leader of a group of House conservatives, said he expected the water-bill veto to be overridden. "I plan to vote to sustain the veto, and I assume it will be a very small group of us," he said. "When the appropriations bills come . . . that's where the real fight on fiscal responsibility will be, and my guess is we'll have enough Republicans to sustain" a veto.

The water bill is supported by a number of Bush's usual allies, including business and farm groups. The measure even brought together Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Olka.), the panel's ranking member, who rarely agree. Inhofe had appealed to Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Budget Director Jim Nussle to urge the president not to veto the bill, and he vowed to lead the fight to override the veto.

"I share the president's concerns on excessive spending," said Republican bill supporter Sen. Mel Martinez. "There are some things in this bill that are not pretty in terms of government spending. But at the end of the day, as a Floridian, Everglades restoration is such an integral part of this WRDA bill we have to take the good with the bad."

Democrats pounced on the veto to portray Bush as out of touch with domestic priorities.

"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Next week, the House is expected to take up the first of a string of spending bills that could face Bush vetoes: a $215-billion bill that combines Democratic-sought funding increases for health and education programs with spending for popular veterans programs.

Although the fiscal year began Oct. 1, Congress has yet to send Bush a spending bill.

Bush, signaling a new determination to erase the red ink in the budget, has complained that Congress added $22 billion to his budget and seemed addicted to earmarks. In the first six years of his administration, federal spending soared. Bush never vetoed a GOP-written spending bill. His administration inherited a budget surplus and has presided over six years of deficits, including a record $412.7 billion in fiscal 2004.

On Friday in his veto statement, Bush noted that the House originally approved a $15-billion water bill and the Senate approved a $14-billion measure, but instead of the customary splitting the difference during negotiations, they "emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion."

"This is not fiscally responsible," he said.

The water bill authorizes projects, but the funds must be provided through the separate appropriations process.

Bush complained that some of the projects fall outside the main mission of the Army Corps of Engineers: "facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems."

[Dr. Shane]

I think the veto is because of the pork loaded on, not because of the water bills. A nasty habit of Congress is to load up popular bills will pork because most presidents are afraid to veto a popular bill. This is another illustration of why the President should have a line-item veto.

[Neil D]

what pork?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

On Friday in his veto statement, Bush noted that the House originally approved a $15-billion water bill and the Senate approved a $14-billion measure, but instead of the customary splitting the difference during negotiations, they "emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion."

That looks like at least $8 billion of pork.

[Neil D]

Again I ask the question, " What pork?"?

The bill is specifically targeting water and thier projects to control it/direct it. There are leveys that are in dire need of funding otherwise the housing project that is situated behind them will cost far more to repair....

So, Shane, what pork?

[Dr. Shane]

How did the bill grow from $15 to $23 billion in conference committee? One has to understand that everything done on the regular House and Senate committees and on the open floors is a matter of public record. However what goes on in a conference committee is not public information. We can examine the bills before they go into conference committee and the bill that comes out and see the difference but we do not know who proposed what and who voted for what. Often times a congressman or senator will vote against a provision on the open floor only to vote for it in conference committee. So a bill that increases by 50% in conference committee should be flagged by the President. What went on in there? Who added what and why? Such a drastic increase shouldn't be made behind closed doors.

[Neil D]

So what you are saying is that while the bill increased in spending costs, it must be pork, that is, useless spending that is brought to some state to favor some senator's favorite contributor.

and in actuality, it may be some spending that is actually needful to help get the water where it needs to be or protect the levies from eroding away into a subdivision of rural housing....

You don't know what the money is for....but by God, if it has risen in costs, it's gotta be to pad some senator/congressman's back pocket.

Man, what a pesimistic view....

[Dr. Shane]

As a contractor, I am quite supportive of federal construction projects. However when a bill increases by 50% in conference committee, I think that is good reason to take a pessimistic view.

Water projects are important. No doubt. Yet after a recession and still during a war, this Administration has managed to get the budget deficit to decline a couple of years in a row now. We can't fight a multi-billion dollar war and at the same time have a gravy train at home. Like it or not, we have a commitment now in the Middle East that we can't run away from.

[Neil D]

Quote:

As a contractor, I am quite supportive of federal construction projects. However when a bill increases by 50% in conference committee, I think that is good reason to take a pessimistic view.

Normally, I would agree....but for a report that I recently saw from one of the news agency, after that bridge fell in Minniapolis....the report stated that not only are bridges accross the US failing, but that Dams are also in need of major repair along with various water ways.. perhaps the pictures of one Louisianna city famous for Mardi Gras with it's levys erroded away and flooding various neighborhoods might come to mind. Then there was the report from Central California [near Stockton and Lodi] that most of it's levys were in bad need of repair, and they had houses, major tract houses, sitting behind the leveys... The cost to all of these levys and dams and bridges to fix- $1 trillion over the next 10 years....And you are a bit upset that the US goverment wants to increase the funding for these projects by 50%.....

As a contractor, you should read something from the US core of Engineers from time to time, don'tcha? Dont they say something like this in thier opinions pages?

Ok, admit it...you miss spoke....

[olger]

States should fix their own bridges - they do it all the time in Ohio.

Oh and..one bridge falls and panic ensues, leading me to think that the panic was here latent all along.

oG

[Dr. Shane]

If the needs are so great and legitimate, why do they need to be dealt with in secret in conference committee? What aren't the supporters of them taking recognition on the open Senate and House floors? Conference committees are to iron out the differences between a House version and a Senate version of similar bills. Coming out with a bill 50% more is highly suspicious.

[Bravus]

This bill pales into insignificance beside the bill for the war. I know we disagree about whether the war was necessary, and about where to from here, but really, this bill is negligible and Bush (who also brought in massive tax cuts in a time of war) is in no position to talk about fiscal discipline. Of course, this was part of the plan all along: bankrupt the country so they can plausibly say 'we can't afford social programs'. Still trying to drown the government in a bathtub... pity it's taking the country down with it.

[Jeannieb43]

This may be off topic, but it's the first thing that came into my mind when reading this thread.

Two days ago I heard an AirAmerica talk show in which the host and all the callers were watching C-SPAN, doing a live broadcast of proceedings in Congress. A bill of impeachment against Cheney was being introduced, and it was voted by Congress to refer it to the Judiciary Committee - a required first step in an impeachment process. The AirAmerica people were ecstatic.

I haven't had access to newspapers or TV since then. Don't know what became of it.

This country is sick and tired of this administration and all it's doing to hurt the American people.

[Neil D]

Good grief!!!!

Actual NEEDS are being addressed, so that life and livelihood can continue, and you are grousing over 'secret committee meetings'....

there are hundreds of "secret committee meeting" in Washington...it's gonna take hundred of billions of dollars per year to fix the water projects that we currently have, and you are grousing over the pitince that they have given to it as opposed to the 100 billions that are needed?!?!?!?

Look, Ebenizer Scrooge, just because you are not affected, doesn't mean that you wont be and your home or livelyhood may not be water works orientateed, but there are some real people out there who need this. And it's gonna cost LESS to fix the water works NOW before they break than after they break, where homes and people lives are affected.

But, BEFORE, we get to real work, and BEFORE lives and livelyhoods are destroyed, let's bicker about conspiracy theorys and politics of who is really benifiting and which party is the grander/nobeler of the two. Sheesh......

[Bravus]

Erm, and I realised that in the first sentence of my post above I used 'bill' to mean both a proposed piece of legislation and an accounting of costs. Wish I could say it was an intentional clever pun, but sadly it was just a 'snior moment'.

[Dr. Shane]

Couple of points:

• The bills to fund the war were not made in secret.
• The tax cuts were made during time of recession in an effort to turn around the economy. They worked, revenues are up and the budget deficit is in decline.

The idea of Bush trying to bankrupt the country is conspiracy talk. When measuring the deficit in relation to the GNP (the only true way to measure it) it is not record breaking.

[Dr. Shane]

The bill to impeach Cheney was authored by Dennis Kucinich in a desperate attempt to cater to the far, left extremists in his party. His presidential bid is going no where so he needs to pull something out of his bag of tricks. The Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress are embarrassed by it and that is why they sent it to the Judiciary Committee which will prevent Kucinich from being able to grand stand on the House floor. The Democrat leadership wanted to kill it completely but Republicans wanted to keep it alive in order to shame the Democrats and that is why all the leadership could do is push it off into committee.

I suspect Air America didn't cover that part of the story... but I may be wrong. NRP is the closest I get to Air America down here. Remember... always remember... if we are going to listen to ideologues, we need to balance them off because they always employ selective reporting.

[Neil D]

This has been moved...if you wnated to reply, why not reply there?

As a result, you are hijacking this thread and it is just outright rude...not to mention that what was done was against some c/a netettiquet...

why dont you reply there, Shane...?

[Dr. Shane]

I moved my comment to the other thread. However if anyone should be reprimanded for "hijacking" the thread, it should probably be the person that actually went off topic and not another member that responded.

FDR tried to spend our way out of the Great Depression. It didn't work. The Great Depression drug on longer and got worse. The private sector is what drives the economy, not the government. The government can create jobs only so long as they have a healthy private sector to support them.

When Bush took office the economy was in decline, even before 9/11 and even more so afterwards. Bush cut taxes in order to spur growth in the private sector AND he also increased government spending to create jobs in the government sector. The short-term result was a large budget deficit. He was banking n the idea that these measures would spur the economy resulting in private-sector growth which would eventually increase tax revenues (even though the tax rate would be less) and in the end the increased revenues would pay for the increased government spending. By golly, he was right. That is exactly what happened. For the past couple of years, even though taxes have not been increased, the deficit is falling - in spite of the Iraq War.

Now let's not give Bush too much credit. John F. Kennedy did the same thing to turn up a declining economy in the early 60s. Ronald Reagan did the same thing to turn up a declining economy in the early 80s. So Bush only did what had worked before.

[Neil D]

Since you have not looked at the bill, let me be the first to paste what the bill is allowed to do, from the bill.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.

Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment.

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.

Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

Sec. 1009. Small projects to prevent or mitigate damage caused by navigation projects.

Sec. 1010. Small projects for aquatic plant control.

and in case you are wondering how much Texas is getting and what it's is supposed to be used for...here ya go-

(40) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000.

( NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE- In carrying out the project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (including the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).←→

(41) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, MATAGORDA BAY RE-ROUTE, TEXAS- The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(42) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS- The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(43) LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PHASE I, TEXAS- The project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000.

And while it AUTHORIZES these projects to recieve money, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will get money. Nevertheless, the green light has been given.

Oh, and you can find it here.

[Jeannieb43]

Sorry Neil. Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Sorry.

[Neil D]

Sorry Neil. Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Sorry.

I recently read the title to a book not too long ago, and thought it would be appropreate here-

"Don't sweat the small stuff.....and it's all small stuff!"