Of course if the president doesn’t want any of the extra language and spending as part of the bill, he would veto the whole thing anyways and not risk the cut-out portion being returned to him as passed. Which is the whole point to my rant. If the president signs on with only a portion of the spending bill and sends the rest back to Congress, he has essentially already given his approval for the entire package. Which means the Ryan/Feingold Veto Act is just a long and winding charade of political posturing and HOT AIR. So, although I mentioned in an earlier post that Congress should strike down this Veto Act, it really doesn't matter if it makes it or not - it is only a spinning wheel.
But, if I were a congressman I would be fuming that one of my fellow House members is attempting to cut spending by clumping my district needs in together with wasteful pork. Their veto plan, as well-intentioned as it seems also does nothing to address the pork-for-votes atmosphere that permeates the halls of Congress.
As a mere citizen, I am for bi-partisanship and against genuine pork spending, but the bottom line is each and every congressman needs to take responsibility for their own actions including wasteful spending and not pass off accountability to what appears to be the luck of the draw in the hands of this president or any president for that matter.
Retired General Speaks Out:
The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies." -- Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom