I find it hilarious that Bush during his "rubber-stamp" presidency, who vetoed his FIRST bill in late '06 sits in judgement of this bill. So, why do neo-cons try to use this as an excuse for Bush's impending veto? The argument is just not valid when you look at his track-record? Does anyone else see this and feel it's hypocrisy?
Under Republicans, pork spending has grown by estimates of as much as 600% across ALL spending bills. Nothing better illustrates the meltdown in spending restraint than earmarking, the process by which members secure special pork projects, ex. Alaska's infamous $223 million "bridge to nowhere."
2001-2005 period marks the transformation of the Rep. party from its traditional role as a win-or-lose guardian of limited government to that of a majority government party just as comfortable with big government as the Dems, only with different spending priorities," says Chris DeMuth, pres. of the A.E.I.
2007-03-28
08:12:06
·
8 answers
·
asked by
♥austingirl♥
6