Captain Honesty
I think Bush is a generally honest guy, but this is known as "soft corruption". He sounds like fuckin FDR or something when he says this about the highway spending proposal,
So the bill I'm signing is going to help give hundreds of thousands of Americans good-paying jobs."Really, this story has great reporting and the soft corruption is best illustrated in this graf:
Alaska, the third-least populated state, for instance, got the fourth most money for special projects — $941 million — thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican.Politics is politics and Bush just isn't going to fight hard on this issue. He still is honest and he still is Republican I think,
The president had threatened to veto the highway bill if it was too fat. White House spokesman Trent Duffy said some House members wanted to spend $400 billion, so Bush considered $286.4 billion a good compromise.*UPDATE* Ben had such an amazing link in the comments section, that I had to post it in its entirety here. It is such a clear view of what the founding father's thoughts are and what the literal father of the constitution thought. I would highlight the most important parts but every paragraph is so specific and fantastic, that you must read it all.
Veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution. I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
James Madison, President of the United States
5 Comments:
I got into a debate over the Bush-Kerry thing with a friend who was one of the most genuinely honest, informed, centrist and unbiased people I've ever met. When asked, he said he was supporting Kerry. Not because he liked Kerry at all, but because for three simple reasons:
"Bush wastes money. And I can't friggin' stand that. I'd rather deal defeat to someone who does that. At least Kerry proposed to balance the budget."
The fact that Bush does waste money so much is probably the biggest thing I have against him. Glenn Reynolds wondered once, when was the last victory for a small-government type?
I don't believe Bush is a bad guy or anything, but let's face it with a theme from a former Canadian Prime Minister: A whore is a whore, and if I had my chance at that kind of patronage, I'd've been at the trough with them, too. Well, I wouldn't, because I like those who campaign on NOT spending my money for me, but you know what I mean.
A question arises:
Given that lefties like the idea of high levels of government spending, this would prove to them that Bush has a sound economic policy?
Kerry would have wasted plenty of money, believe me. He would have just raised taxes to do it.
Well they don't want to give Bush credit for anything.
And I wish we had a small government type in there. I would say my number one priority is eliminating the size of the government at all three levels.
Someday, I'd love to see another President write something like this.
Mind you, Madison wrote the darned thing, so he could afford to get a little snippy about it.
"Kerry would have wasted plenty of money, believe me. He would have just raised taxes to do it."
I know, but John's whole point (different John than the moonbat) was that he simply wouldn't vote for anyone who had already wasted money. It was basically "punishing the offender" because, in his mind, replacing one devil with another devil is okay so long as it means you punished the first.
Believe me, this guy gave Bush credit where credit was due. When it came to wasting money, though, this guy didn't like it because he saw it as a betrayal of traditional small-government conservatism. He gets pretty pissy about such thigns.
I think one of the problems with small government is that it's a hard thing to campaign on. "What would we do with your money? Well, nothing."
It's not exciting, and people want more, you know? I don't agree with it. I'm trying to figure out how privatizing the military might work, but I'm realistic enough to realize that stopping governmental growth alone is next to impossible.
I think small government is hard to campaign on because modern people have suffered no hardship and are scared wussies. They want as much control of their environment as possible until one day, there is a police state, and the cycle starts back over again. People fear freedom because they don't trust society to be responsible.
Post a Comment
<< Home