President Bush's Vetoes More Politics than Principle

In 2007 President Bush has threatened slightly more than twice the number of vetoes he did in 2003, according to USA Today. This marker is important because in 2003 there was a Republican led House Senate that was drawing threats for similarly spending above what the president requests or attaching disagreeable legislative provisions. The Democrats took over in January 2007 and continue this practice of spending over the president's request. Those who argue that well the Democrats spend further over than the Republicans are missing the point. When your principle is capping spending on a program to control it shouldn't matter who spends how much more than the president's request. The principle dictates that you veto bills no matter who they come from when the break your cap or contain provisions unacceptable to you.

When Republicans controlled both the House and Senate the President threatened a veto on bills above his cap or with disagreeable provisions attached but than signed them anyway. One example is the transportation bill in 2004 on which the Heritage Foundation supported a veto because of wasteful spending included in the bill. The President even called the Senate version of the bill excessive for exceeding his cap. After declaring the bill excessive he signed the House version, which was no less excessive. The second example is the Defense Authorization Act of 2005, which included the Detainee Treatment Act, also received a veto threat. However, President Bush signed the bill and attached a signing statement with respect to the detainee language.


Now with the Democrats in control he threatens to veto any legislation that includes an Iraq time line or restrictions on operations in Iraq. This threat produced a bill that did not include the offensive language in any form. The President is also threatening vetoes on any spending legislation that breaks his caps.

The only veto during the Republican controlled legislature was the HR 800 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This veto was specifically for social/cultural conservatives and there was nothing in it that would give fiscal conservatives any hope. Now he is vetoing spending legislation and the fiscal conservatives are supposed to be happy. However, these vetoes are more about politics than principle. It makes good politics to veto Democrat legislation and apparently OK to strong arm your own party with signing statements when the send you something that you do not like.This is politics and an exertion of raw executive power. The reason President Bush may not use signing statements on Democrat legislation is because the GOP wouldn't stand up to him for doing or support Sen. Warner, McCain, and Graham when they criticized the President in the Boston Globe about the signing statement attached to the Detainee Treatment Act. No one on either side stood with them even though the act passed overwhelmingly.

We need to examine the issues of principle over politics when looking at the actions of our elected officials. It is a noble goal to want to cut wasteful spending or understandable to wish to control the conduct of a war. However, weather the House and Senate in the control of your party or the opposing party you should use the same veto power to control both.