Details of the projects that Bush cited as his reasons for a veto included:
* $3.6 billion for major wetlands and other coastal restoration, flood control and dredging projects for Louisiana, a state where coastal erosion and storms have resulted in the disappearance of huge areas of land;
* nearly $2 billion for the restoration of the Florida Everglades;
* nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers;
* $7 billion for various projects related to hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including assuring 100-year levee protection in New Orleans;
* hundreds of smaller dredging, wetlands restoration and flood control projects across the country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21599575/
2007-11-03 07:14:47 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To me it looks like he's trying to put New Orleans underwater for good.
2007-11-03 07:15:37 · update #1
I'm not seeing anything substantial from the apologists on this. Like no bill passed under Congress from 2000-2007 had state projects. Besides, the article states those projects were wetlands renovation projects. Prretty appropriate on a water bill.
2007-11-03 09:40:19 · update #2
He is now an obstructionist, his veto on this will be overridden.
The first of many veto overrides to come.
"Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too."
2007-11-03 07:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because, the House/Senate conference committee members, added 9 billion in pork barrel spending to the bill, while it was in committee. The house passed a 15 billion dollar Bill. The senate passed a 14 billion dollar Bill. Those are the projects that everyone agrees should be funded. Not the extra 9 billion in pork barrel spending, added to the bill during conference. Even Democrats think the bill should have been vetoed because of the additional pork added to the Bill.
2016-05-27 04:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like to know what else was in the bill.
What tax increase that democrats put in to have him veto the bill.
From your source:
"Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate"
2007-11-03 07:22:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
9 BILLION in additional projects attached to the bill.
That might have done it. Besides, where will this money come from. Did congress think about that ? Probably not. Just trying to make him look bad again.
2007-11-03 07:34:59 · answer #4 · answered by Robert S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't really matter why. There are enough votes to counteract his veto and he knows that. He's just being arrogant and pompous as usual. Same w/ the health care bill. Bush doesn't care about the environment other than raping it for all it's natural resources to further line the pockets of the elite.
2007-11-03 07:33:50 · answer #5 · answered by sammie 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush cut taxes, but is spending billions in Iraq. He's got to pay for that war somehow., and he's vowed to not raise taxes.
2007-11-03 07:19:28 · answer #6 · answered by Dan H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well New Orleans IS below sea level . It wouldn't take much to put it under again. He is busy spending our social security and tax money in Iraq.
2007-11-03 07:18:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Appeal to conservatives by slashing spending.
Duh.
2007-11-03 07:39:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you honestly looking for an honest, good-for-America answer to anything Bush does?
2007-11-03 07:22:49 · answer #9 · answered by golfer7 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sounds to me like stuff the states should be handling.
2007-11-03 07:18:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋