Should Democrats accept President Bush's proposal to cut earmarks in half?

Question

I think it is a good proposal. Should have been suggested when Republicans had control of Congress, for sure, and likely it is a purely political gesture for the '08 campaigns, but, never the less, it is a step towards fiscal responsibility, what do you think?

Answer 1

Yes, they should. And yes, he should have proposed this about 6 years ago. He also holds the trump card. All he has to do is veto any bill with earmarks in it.

Answer 2

Earmarks should definitely be cut. They are spending millions, if not billions on absolutely ridiculous stuff. Both parties are doing it and it needs to be stopped. If a state wants a teapot museum or a road to nowhere (both actually came up for federal funding) then it should come out of their own pockets and not the nation's. The Democrats have gotten to where they vote down any idea of Bush's, no matter how much merit it may have, out of sheer spite. The only thing they have accomplished in the past eight years is to keep Bush from accomplishing anything. No wonder congress actually has a lower approval rating than Bush does! The last time I checked their's was at 18 percent compared to his 36! That really ought to tell them something, to have an even lower rating than him. There should be term limits on congress so they can't keep reelecting the same idiots with old grudges.

Answer 3

Funny how it wasn't suggested when Republicans were in control, isn't it.

It's purely a political gesture. The Republicans would vote for it only if they knew they wouldn't win because they are addicted to earmarks, just like the Democrats. This would NEVER be proposed by a Republican if Republicans were in control.

I do think earmarks need to be curtailed but it can only be done by a President who has a majority in Congress that he can convince to go along with it.

Answer 4

Oh, i'm sorry, i ought to have misinterpret the 20-something % of approval Bush had. How flawed i turn into, listening to all the applicants asserting they have a ought to restoration u.s. after Bush, which incorporate the Republicans...and how defective i turn into approximately Bush's loss of an go out suggestions-set in Iraq. inspite of no progression or replace, we are needless to say triumphing! And wow, how stupid i turn into for finding out directly to not decide presidents consistent with very own options or character flaws. basically an fool could seem at what presidents can do for the country...the genuine geniuses could only elect to not vote for a candidate consistent with issues the applicants can't administration.

Answer 5

good question. I'm sure hypocrite democrats who were complaining about overspending and earmarks when Republicans were in control of Congress will oppose Bush on this.
edit: (look at the answers here. I have already proved my point)

Answer 6

Since Bush has been THE BIGGEST abuser of earmarks his proposal is rather half hearted. Bush was all for earmarks when the GOP controlled the White House and the Congress, now that tides have turned he is suddenly opposed to them?

Answer 7

the repub congress had the highest earmarks spending in the history of the US when in power 2 years ago, why shouldnt the Democrats be allowed to get even the small fraction of the same that Bush thought was perfectly fine 2 years ago

bush is full of it at this point

another lame duck squirming at the thought his best days are over

Answer 8

They should support it, as well as a line item veto. Our congress is so corrupt, noone wants to give up the gravy train. We, the people, get screwed as usual.

Answer 9

We need a line item veto badly. That is the only way we'll get either party to stop loading child care bills with tons of un-related spending.

Answer 10

I agree with you. Some of the things are taxes support are just ridiculous and they need to be eliminated.