Instead of begging Congress for $46 billion more to fight in Iraq, why doesn't Bush cut costs elsewhere?

Question

Why can't Bush cut $46 billion of costs to fight his war, rather than ask the taxpayer (through Congress) to pony up this money?

Isn't Bush trying to be a fiscal conservative now, especially after vetoing the SCHIP bill which would have provided health care for poor children?

So why doesn't he find other places within the military to cut $46 billion in costs (maybe hold off construction of the next aircraft carrier, etc.) and put that money where it is needed in Iraq?

Brian: Bush can always come up with a plan where cuts can be made, and give it to Congress to vote on and implement, rather than beg for the money.

Mahal: As Rudy admitted the other night, you can thank him for taking the line-item veto challenge to the Supreme Court.

Answer 1

Take away the tax cuts for a month...that should do it...I know Republicans would be willing to give up their tax cut since they support the war.

Answer 2

1. Bush is not trying to be a fiscal conservative. The SCHIP expansion bill was going to put adults and children from families making $60,000 on the current program. That does not define a poor child. Expanding the SCHIP program was unnecessary, according to the administration.

2. Bush does not have the power to cut expenditures from a budget that has already been passed. Congress would have to submit a bill that Bush could then sign or veto.

Answer 3

The Liberal Democrats are in power in congress. I believe that it is the Liberal Democrats that are giving the money for the war. Just to keep things in perspective it was the Liberal Democrats that decided to go along with the veto of SCHIP. The Liberal Democrats are in control of the purse strings and can dole out funds for approved legislation. What is really happening is the Liberal Democrats are spending on a war and not cutting elsewhere which is their job.

Answer 4

Of course, you mean "why doesn't Congress cut costs somewhere"?

Right?

The president never adds earmarks to a federal budget. That would be a good place to start.

Presidents have begged for line-item veto, like Clinton in the 90's, and Congress always resists.

(In Clinton's case, the Supreme Court also resisted.)

Answer 5

Congress still has to approve this money being spent on the War on Terror, regardless of whether he proposes a cut or not.

And a Democrat Congress approving a budget cut?
You've got to be kidding.

Answer 6

I say totally cut the security funding for new York, and San Francisco. New York because it seems it is the terrorist's favorite target and New Yorkers hate the war as much as the rest of you commucrats. That would be their contribution for revenge for attacking their city. And since San Francisco hates the military let's pull all bases, security establishments. That would be their contribution. Let the fight the terrorists off their limp wrists.

Answer 7

President Bush doesn't have to beg congress for money, the past two spendig bills he's had to threaten to send back because they wanted to give TOO MUCH money.

He just has to beg them to ACTUALLY pass bills.

I mean we still don't have appropriations bills to keep our government running.

Why do you think Congress's rating is in the single digits?

Answer 8

You are absolutely correct. The bloated military budget could easily be cut that much, but to mention it is blasphemy. We spend 40% of tax revenues on the current and previous wars, and more than any other country.

Answer 9

I've got it, perhaps if the federal government would stop funding research on global warming, or maybe we should cut welfare spending.

Answer 10

Because Bush doesn't spend money, only Congress can. they would have to cut funding somewhere else to free up the funds.......