http://www.reuters.com/article/americasCrisis/idUSN02584453
Bush recently vetoed popular water projects bill that suppose to improves hundreds of water projects across our nation. That includes restoration in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina and improving the Florida Everglades. Bush opposed this bill because it will cost too much unneeded money that each individaul favors.The Senate passed the bill, 81-12, in September after the House of Representatives approved it by 381-40 a month earlier.House would hold a vote on Tuesday to attempt to override the president's veto.
"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.
I can see that Check and Balance are used here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071026/ap_on_go_co/water_projects
This article is about the same explaining about the water bill but before Bush vetoed. Top Democrats are urging Bush to sign this bill.
2 comments:
After reading the article I beleived that President Bush lose perspective or what is more important. His mind is on the war and had forgot how water is important and we are in crisis on water. As U.S. Dhamber of Commerce stated without better waterways communities are at risk of a flood.
The Reuter's article states that the $23 billion dollar bill is the costliest US Army Corp of Engineers bill to ever reach a Presidents desk. That may be, but there is an infastructure crises in the United States and a lot of waterways are burdened under the traffic and operating with equipment such as locks that are very old and worn out. The President says that the bill, which includes 900 projects and studies, has waste involved, projects that "lack any merit." Sadly, the article does not put any examples of those forward so it's hard for the reader to know what the real story is.
The AP article quotes Speaker Pelosi as saying that there are "more than 200 projects" which seems like a contradiction to the first article. Or, is she trying to minimize the number of projects so that the media and voters do not work harder to decides if there are some wasteful projects included? Even the Democrat Russ Feingold called the bill "flawed and bloated" and he thought that the Congress should fix the bill instead of overriding the veto. The bill has broad support, probably because so many states have water projects that they want funded. To lawmakers, they will work together to get money for their district. It's the old political story, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." I'm sure the bill has extremely important projects, but I don't think that they are necessarily being prioritized and that there may well be some pork involved.
Post a Comment