The furor started a clouple days ago when Republican presidential nominee John McCain could not answer a question about how many houses he owned. His answer to the questions wa "I think I'll have my staff get back to you," according the Politico. Within hours rival Democratic nominee Barak Obama sent out a blast e-mail asking his supporters to write letters to the editor exposing the real John McCain.
Yes, Mr. O'Bama if asked most middle class Americans could tell you how many houses they owned. However, the amount of property, weather it is the house you live in or ones in which you have invested, are not the issue. Mr. Obama himself owns a large, expensive mansion in Hyde Park, one of the most exclusive communities in Chicago. So, what is wrong with McCain owning seven properties. If the Democrats want to enter the property debate then they better be ready for the onslaught because this will bring up Mr. Obama's affiliation with convicted felon Tony Rezco.
Also, for the Deocratic party to complain about and use a property and wealth based argument is wrong because they compalined when John Edward's large custom-built home was discussed in 2004 is hypocritical.
John McCain makes no pretenses of fighting for a paverty alleviation agenda, but Democrats always do. This is not a problem, but the Democrats need to stop playing "gotcha" on the wealth issue because there is no individual below the pay grade of a John Edwards or Barak Obama that could possibly run for presidnet.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)