What do you think about President Bush's veto of The Water Resources Development Act of 2007?

Question

Bush vetoed the bill that allocated 23 billion to repairing dams, improving flood control, improve water quality, and revitalize riverfront development in the US. Thankfully, the House and Senate has overrode his veto. Is Bush aware of the Katrina catastrophe, the severe droughts in the South, the deplinishing coastlines, and the numerous dams that are at risk to collapse?? Why does the President not advocate spending money for the good of the country? He only asks for money for war. What are your thoughts??

Answer 1

Again Bush shows how stupid he is. He has no moral basis.
His war is impoverishing us all. He will do this for the rest of his term. I surely look forward to see this happening again.

Answer 2

The house passed a 15 billion dollar water resource bill.

The senate passed a 17 billion dollar water resource bill.

When it went to the house/senate conference committee.

They added another 6 to 8 billion in pork spending to the bill, that had nothing to do with water protection.

Thats why Bush vetoed the bill.

Hoping that congress would quickly just remove the pork barrel spending from the bill and resubmit it.

Bush's veto had nothing at all to do with not wanting to spend money on water resources.

.
The house/senate conference committee, is a favorite place to add pork barrel spending to bills.

There is no debate on the added spending in either the house or senate.

Since the basic bill has already been passed in the house and senate and major issues ironed out already.

Members of the house and senate do not like reopen negotions on the bills, and usually just have a straight vote on them, with no new debate.

Alot of times, the pork barrel spending added to the bill in conference committee is not even known to members of congress when they vote on the compromise bills that come out of the conference committee's.

Answer 3

The reason that he did not approve it is because it is the states responsilblity to improve their water resources. Unless it is owned by the federal governments. The Katrina catastrophe had nothing to do with it, it was the states job have good dykes built, but they didnt. People are still getting water, its just that there has not been any rain and Bush can not control nature.

The war is good for this country because right now we are fighting for the future of our country because if we just let the terrorist attack happen and let them get away with it we could be fighting a war on our own turf. The water resources bill is great and everything but right now that is not the big issue at hand

Answer 4

So, inclusive of your common sense we ought to continuously enable each and every president after Bush to proceed the endless spending spree? because Bush did it, that is now desirable and we ought to continuously not in any respect say something hostile to it no count number how a lot it lowers the cost of the dollar, no count number how severe the deficit receives? we ought to continuously basically close up and enable Obama spend us into oblivion? i like how the liberals excuse there own misbehaving with the youngster like excuse "properly, they hit me first" and that makes all of it extra positive.

Answer 5

the main reason many people were opposed to this bill is the federalization of all water in the United States and the Pork that was authorized under this bill. Control of water is a state responsibility as reserved in the 10th amendment

Answer 6

It was right to veto it.

The bill was laden with pork that benefitted the rich and connected at the expense of the taxpayer.

It had another Alaskan bridge to nowhere. It included refurbishment of beaches to protect the seaside property values of the rich. It had spending for wastewater treatment and drinking water infrastructure - which has ALWAYS been a local/state responsibility.

Here's a list of some of the earmarks ladening this bill:

Funding for a study on the impact on navigation of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge (renamed "Don Young's Way" in SAFTEA-LU) at Cook Inlet in Alaska (Section 4005);
Riverfront development to enhance recreation in Perth Amboy, New Jersey (Section 4048);
Ecosystem restoration of the Walla Walla River Basin in Washington (Section 4063);
Water supply projects in Wilke County and Yadkinville, North Carolina, and Abilene, Texas (Sections 4058, 4059 and 4077);
Authorization of $5,300,000 for the construction of Lake Lanier Olympic Center in Georgia (Section 5061); and
Authorization of $65,000,000 for a Lido Key Beach, Florida, replenishment project (Section 3036).
$21,000,000 for Imperial Beach, California, beach replenishment;
$101,000, 000 for beach replenishment at Ocean City, Sea Isle City, and contiguous New Jersey seashore resorts;
$59,000,000 for central New Jersey seashore beach replenishment;
$122,000,000 for beach replenishment in northern New Jersey; and
$10,600,000 for beach replenishment on Pawley's Island, South Carolina.

This is why it was correctly vetoed. Pork projects for the benefit of Congresspersons' cronies back home, in order to buy votes and donations, at the expense of the taxpayer.

And stupid people actually believed the Democrats were less corrupt. Incroyable!

Answer 7

I think Bush is an idiot and a hypocrite. The only justifiable excuse for vetoing that bill is that its not fiscally responsible. Yet the mission in Iraq has been a gleaming example of fiscal irresponsibility.

Answer 8

totally correct. more liberal tax and spend pap...totally unneccessary as the bill should have been presented less the pork.

Answer 9

Give the guy a break, he is a retard after all.