Congress Hands Bush First Veto Override

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) suffered the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency Thursday as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite his protest that it was too expensive. It was the first time in a decade that Congress has passed a bill over a presidential veto (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=).


The vote was 79-14 to pass the bill. Enactment was a foregone conclusion, but it still marked a milestone for a president who spent his first six years with a much friendlier Congress controlled by his Republican Party. Now he confronts a more hostile, Democratic- controlled legislature, and Thursday's vote showed that even many Republicans will defy him on spending matters dear to their political careers.

The bill funds hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as dams, sewage plants and beach restoration, that are important to local communities and their representatives. It also includes money for the hurricane-hit Gulf Coast (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) and for Florida Everglades restoration efforts.
The House voted 361-54 to override the veto Tuesday. Both votes easily exceeded the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber to negate a presidential veto.

The last such veto override happened when Congress dealt President Clinton (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) the second of his two overrides in November 1997.

Bush vetoed no bills during his first five years in office. He has since vetoed a stem cell research bill twice, an Iraq spending bill that set guidelines for troop withdrawals, and a children's health insurance bill.

House and Senate Republicans managed to sustain those vetoes.
But they broke ranks on the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, which Bush vetoed on Nov. 2, calling it too expensive.

more...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SPKEN00&show_article=1

[Apathy]

George Bush hates black people.

[peam]

and water.

[Tsa`ah]

And apparently spending money where it's needed.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

George Bush hates black people.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/imagedream/Funny/24601182627.gif

[Celephais]

I wish they'd override him on the stem cells...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I wish they'd override him on the stem cells...

Me too. Untold value in the research there.

[Celephais]

Whatever, now that guy who was on the colbert report who pretty much funds all of the private DNA type research will completely commercialize that knowledge...

The Island here we come.

[Kembal]

Don't see this veto impacting any foriegn policy issues (I think Congress has a war funding bill up next), but I could see it affecting the SCHIP vote. I don't think the second SCHIP bill has been vetoed by the President yet.

[Danical]

What was the deal with the children's health insurance bill? :(

[Tsa`ah]

Apparently Bush hates children ... and so does a little over 1/3 of the legislative branch.

[Krendeli]

Of course he hates them. They don't have oil.

[Drew]

What was the deal with the children's health insurance bill? :(


It covered children of adults earning 70K+

[Gan]

So he hates rich children even more.

[Apathy]

So what were all the 'other' things loaded into the bill? You know, the real reasons he vetoed it that we don't get to hear about.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685

There's one take.

In essence? Bush didn't want to pay that much to cover people who might be able to pay for insurance as it was without the bill.

[Tsa`ah]

So what were all the 'other' things loaded into the bill? You know, the real reasons he vetoed it that we don't get to hear about.

Well if you listen to political analysts from either side of the spectrum ... it's because he's signed so much, spent so much ... he's going into veto mode as a means to play the "responsible" spender.

God only knows what he signed off on up to this point that had plenty "pre-loaded".

[Danical]

It covered children of adults earning 70K+.

See . . . that's borderline poverty for a family where I live.

The local paper just published some article saying that it takes a minimum of 130k household income to sustain comfortable living (paying on the median house value and other various expenses) without dipping into the red.

:shrug:

[Daniel]

See . . . that's borderline poverty for a family where I live.

The local paper just published some article saying that it takes a minimum of 130k household income to sustain comfortable living (paying on the median house value and other various expenses) without dipping into the red.

:shrug:

Where my family lives, 40k is straight up balling.

[Danical]

Where my family lives, 40k is straight up balling.

Estimated median household income in 2005: $37,400 (it was $31,926 in 2000)
San Luis Obispo $37,400
California: $53,629

Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $641,800 (it was $278,800 in 2000)
San Luis Obispo $641,800
California: $477,700

Oldish data. It's come down since then and dipped below 600k.

[Kembal]

It covered children of adults earning 70K+

What? Where did you get that number from?

Here's the link to the currently mandated poverty levels for FY 2007: http://liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2007/popstate.htm

For an average family of 4, the poverty level is $20,000. (there is an optional poverty level determination that sets it at 20,650) The SCHIP program would cover children of families that earned up to 300 percent of the poverty level and did not qualify for Medicaid, at the funding levels provided for in the bill.

3 * 20000 = 60000.

There are definitely families with 2 children that make 40-60k and are unable to afford health insurance...I always have a few that attend the youth camp I run. (and our lawyer tells me I shouldn't accept them, because of the liabilities involved with them not having health insurance, but I do anyway.)

[Kembal]

So what were all the 'other' things loaded into the bill? You know, the real reasons he vetoed it that we don't get to hear about.

You mean the water projects bill?

From the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Veto.html?_r=1&ex=1352264400&en=988e97921cb78bff&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin


The bill funds hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as dams, sewage plants and beach restoration, that are important to local communities and their representatives. It also includes money for the hurricane-hit Gulf Coast and for Florida Everglades restoration efforts.

....

But they broke ranks on the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, which Bush vetoed on Nov. 2, calling it too expensive. Thirty-four Republicans voted with the 43 Democrats and two independents to override the veto. Two Democrats, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, voted with 12 Republicans to sustain Bush's veto.

His supporters have noted that the Army Corps has a backlog of $58 billion worth of projects and an annual budget of about $2 billion to address them.

The bill, the first water system restoration and flood control authorization passed by Congress since 2000, would cost $11.2 billion over the next four years, and $12 billion in the 10 years after that, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Flood protection projects along the Gulf Coast, including 100-year levee protection in New Orleans, would cost about $7 billion if fully funded. The bill approves projects but does not fund them.

Some of Bush's most ardent allies argued for the override. ''This bill is enormously important, and it has been a long time coming,'' said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., whose state was hammered by Hurricane Katrina two years ago.

The bill ''is one of the few areas where we actually do something constructive,'' said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss. What Bush sees as pork barrel items, Lott said, ''are good, deserved, justified projects.''

''Almost every president opposes this type of bill,'' he said.

Democrats are sure to remind such Republicans of their rejection of Bush's budgetary concerns when debate turns to several spending bills he also vows to veto.

Democrats, frustrated by their inability to force Bush's hand on Iraq and other matters, clearly enjoyed their victory Thursday. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the message to the White House was, ''you can't keep rolling over us like this.''

The bill would authorize the construction of navigation improvements for the Upper Mississippi River, at an estimated federal cost of $1.9 billion, and an ecosystem restoration project for the Upper Mississippi costing $1.7 billion.

The Indian River Lagoon project in the Florida Everglades would be funded at about $700 million.

The bill calls for an independent peer review process of all Army Corps projects costing $45 million or more, a bid to cut down on wasteful spending.

He said he vetoed the bill because of excessive spending. I don't know who's advising him politically now, but when the bill contains projects to prevent another Katrina-style disaster from happening and it's fairly obvious he's going to get overridden, he shouldn't veto it in the first place. Now there's going to be stories about a weakened presidency for at least a couple of days, if not longer.

[Gan]

Spending Run Amok: President Should Veto Water Resources Development Act

by Nicola Moore and Alison Acosta Fraser (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/alisonfraser.cfm)
WebMemo #1641


The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), or H.R. 1495, offers more evidence that Members of Congress have abandoned their pledge to get spending under control. Due to egregious spending and a plethora of new earmarks, the conference report inflates the bill's price tag by 53 percent.


Former Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman promised that a presidential veto would result from these excesses. Though the conference report passed both chambers with a high margin of votes, the President should remain firm. By vetoing the bill, he would save taxpayers money while sending Congress an important message about fiscal responsibility.


A Bad Bill Made Worse
The bill has two key problems that merit a presidential veto: excessive spending and the use of federal tax dollars to fund state and local responsibilities.


The original House and Senate versions of the bill would have cost taxpayers $15 billion and $14 billion, respectively, and included a slew of pet projects. Both amounts vastly exceeded the President's original request of $4.9 billion. Rather than split the difference, creative conferees threw open the barn doors to even more egregious spending and "airdropped" earmarks. The final bill now costs more than $23 billion.


The larger price tag is largely the result of a slew of questionable earmarks. While most projects in the Army Corps of Engineers budget undergo a thorough cost–benefit analysis, many of the earmarks were won by lobbyists working on behalf of special interests representing beach-front property owners.[1] (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1641.cfm#_ftn1) The WRDA includes the following "beach nourishment" projects: $63 million for Lido Key Beach in Sarasota, Florida; $21 million for Imperial Beach, California; and $10.6 million for Pawley Island, South Carolina.


In addition, many of the projects in the bill fall outside the primary mission of the Army Corps of Engineers and ought to be rejected. While the Corps is intended to pursue projects such as facilitating commercial navigation and mitigating storm damage, the bill would spend: $20 million for sewer overflow infrastructure in Atchison, Kansas; $15 million for wastewater infrastructure in Willmar, Minnesota; and $5 million for drinking water infrastructure for the Village of Kyrias-Joel, New York.


Wastewater, drinking water, and sewer infrastructure projects are ordinarily funded at the state and local level. WRDA shifts these costs onto federal taxpayers, most of whom will never see, use, or benefit from the projects.


Why the President Should Veto the Bill
Congress started the year with a pledge to uphold fiscal discipline. WRDA is yet another abandonment of that pledge—along with the farm bill, the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills, and the dramatic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.


With a showdown looming between Congress and the White House over appropriations bills, a veto of WRDA would send an important signal: True fiscal responsibility requires spending discipline on every piece of legislation, not just the 12 annual spending bills.

Conclusion
WRDA is a prime example of legislation run amok; it is filled with excessive spending that is outside the scope of the legislation. Federal taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the demands of special and parochial interests. A veto would affirm the President's commitment to spending discipline and would remind Members of Congress about their promises of fiscal restraint.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1641.cfm




And now that we have an actual bill number...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1495


And.... here's a cost analysis.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8651/hr1495conference.pdf

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1495.html

[Kembal]

From the article:


Wastewater, drinking water, and sewer infrastructure projects are ordinarily funded at the state and local level.

I'm in the industry, and I know that's wrong. The federal government is behind $400 billion on funding these types of projects. State and local funds are not enough to meet the infrastructure requirements.

[Warriorbird]

I wonder how much has been spent on Blackwater.

[TheEschaton]

The first article supporting the veto was from the Heritage Foundation? Does that even count?

[Gan]

The first article supporting the veto was from the Heritage Foundation? Does that even count?

Its an alternative viewpoint, regardless of the source, ergo it has the right to be heard.

Instead of disparaging the source, why not refute the arguments contained therein? Surely if the source is that disreputable then the arguments it brings fourth should be easy to refute eh?

[Daniel]

I guess you hadn't gotten to the two posts immediately preceeding that one? ....

oh..

[Gan]

Groups: Oppose H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
By: Tom Schatz
Letter to House


Dear Representative:

On behalf of the nearly one million members of our organizations, we write in strong opposition to H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007. This bill ignores years of accumulated evidence that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is sorely in need of fiscal reform. And with the exception of the addition of billions of dollars in new projects, H.R. 1495 is virtually identical to the bill the House passed in June 2005, months before Hurricane Katrina hit. The country learned painful and expensive lessons about the antiquated, political approaches to water resource projects and lack of truly independent peer review for costly, controversial and critical Corps projects.



We urge you to oppose WRDA and support amendments to reform the Corps. Our organizations will consider votes on H.R. 1495 in our end of the year scorecards.


The WRDA legislation as it is now written is unacceptable to American taxpayers. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the bill costs approximately $15 billion. In the two years since the House of Representatives passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 (which was not enacted into law), the bill has grown by more than $3 billion. In addition, H.R. 1495 provides approximately $1.8 billion for new locks on the Upper Mississippi River along with nearly $1.6 billion in environmental restoration projects along the same stretch of river. All told, more than $3.5 billion is in the bill for Upper Mississippi River projects alone. H.R. 1495 also includes a roll-back of Reagan cost sharing rules for a handful of the largest ports, providing a $450 million windfall for the New York / New Jersey Harbor alone.


Furthermore, H.R. 1495 side-steps any significant reforms to this pork-barrel agency. Katrina taught the country costly lessons about the importance of truly independent peer review for costly, controversial or critical projects. The National Academy of Sciences and other independent organizations have recommended independent review as well. In addition, the following reforms that include reining in the $58 billion backlog of unconstructed authorized projects, improving the Corps planning process to reflect modern economic principles, and strengthening cost-sharing rules to equitably distribute costs, should be instituted in WRDA.


Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and to support amendments to reform the Corps. We will consider votes on H.R. 1495 in our end of year scorecards.


http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=10715
(this is an interesting fringe activist site)

[thefarmer]

We will consider votes on H.R. 1495 in our end of year scorecards.

Scorecards?

[TheEschaton]

Lots of organizations keep scorecards on members of Congress, based on certain standards, IE "conservative", "liberal".

-TheE-

[senorgordoburro]

I wonder how much has been spent on Blackwater.

If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know that even though Blackwater and the many other organizations that are civilian contractors in Iraq are expensive, it is a lot cheaper than having the government train, house, feed, and INSURE all of the people that are working over here.

[Warriorbird]

Given that I know a couple of folks who work for Blackwater I know a few things. Their supreme utility is that they don't "count" as military expenditures for the war in Iraq when that sort of thing gets tallied.

[CrystalTears]

Given that I know a couple of folks who work for Blackwater...
You always know someone somewhere, everywhere, that gives you this instant knowledge in that area. It's not possible. Then again perhaps all your experience is second-hand.

[Gan]

6 degrees of WarriorBird?

[Warriorbird]

I'm one of the type of people who loves introducing themselves to everyone, CT. It'd probably annoy you personally. It also helps that Blackwater's headquarters is in North Carolina and my sales territory was the entire state.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not doubting you know a lot of people. I would just rather hear of your personal experience in something rather than hearing that you know a guy and happen to learn it through osmosis.

[Warriorbird]

Other people are far more entertaining than me. It is why I read the PC.

[875000]

Its an alternative viewpoint, regardless of the source, ergo it has the right to be heard.

Instead of disparaging the source, why not refute the arguments contained therein? Surely if the source is that disreputable then the arguments it brings fourth should be easy to refute eh?

I concur.

I have found that merely disputing a source or a number is a poor style of argument. It does not advance a discussion and --it its root -- is intellectually lazy.

Disagree with a fact? Provide a more accurate one and explain why.

[875000]

Given that I know a couple of folks who work for Blackwater I know a few things. Their supreme utility is that they don't "count" as military expenditures for the war in Iraq when that sort of thing gets tallied.

Maybe. But that still does not address the fact that they also may be cheaper.

[Warriorbird]

In the course of being massively more expensive than funding a feel good insurance for kids program...

Not that I'm actually in favor of that. There's a lot of "feel good" legislation. The Iraq War is far from conservative, however.

[senorgordoburro]

They are cheaper because the US basically pays the companies set contracts for certain periods of time. The companies use that money for all of there training, and equipment etc. When the US sends people overseas that directly work for them they have to put a lot of checks into a lot of boxes and that requires very expensive schools, on top of that, the money that a person gets from being injured, even minor injuries is pretty substantial, and the insurance is where they are able to save there money. I have done a decent amount of reading into this because I have considered going to work for them, and the fact that many of my friends have been injured in the line of duty in Iraq so I can speak with first hand knowledge in that department.

[Kembal]

Wait, are we asserting that military contractors like Blackwater are cheaper to have in Iraq than U.S. military and other security personnel? Or all contractors?

While logistics contractors are probably cheaper (assuming they're not overbilling), I highly doubt the total amount paid for a military contractor in Iraq is less than the total amount paid for a soldier in Iraq over any period of time.

Quoting from the Raleigh News & Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/511/story/241329.html


Contractors in Iraq make costs balloon
Extensive paramilitary work earns profit on several levels
Published: Oct 24, 2004 12:30 AM Modified: Oct 23, 2005 03:41 PM

Joseph Neff and Jay Price, Staff Writers

Jerry Zovko's contract with Blackwater USA looked straightforward: He would earn $600 a day guarding convoys that carried food for U.S. troops in Iraq.
But that cost -- $180,000 a year -- was just the first installment of what taxpayers were asked to pay for Zovko's work. Blackwater, based in Moyock, N.C., and three other companies would add to the bill, and to their profits.

Several Blackwater contracts obtained by The News & Observer open a small window into the multibillion-dollar world of private military contractors in Iraq. The contracts show how costs can add up when the government uses private military contractors to perform tasks once handled by the Army.

Here's how it worked in Zovko's case: Blackwater added a 36 percent markup, plus its overhead costs, and sent the bill to a Kuwaiti company that ordinarily runs hotels. That company, Regency Hotel, tacked on its costs for buying vehicles and weapons and a profit and sent an invoice to a German food services company called ESS that cooked meals for the troops.

ESS added its costs and profit and sent its bill to Halliburton, which also added overhead and a profit and presented the final bill to the Pentagon.

It's nearly impossible to say whether the cost for Zovko doubled, tripled or quadrupled. Congressional investigators and defense auditors have had to fight the primary contractor, Halliburton, for details of the spending. The companies say the subcontracts are confidential and won't discuss them.

About 20,000 private security contractors are now in Iraq, escorting convoys, protecting diplomats, training the Iraqi army and maintaining weapons.

The bills for this work flow from the bottom up. They start with Blackwater's $600-a-day guns for hire such as Zovko and his three comrades, who were killed escorting a convoy through Fallujah in March.

At the top is Houston-based Halliburton, which has an open-ended "cost-plus" contract to supply the U.S. military with food, laundry and other necessities. Cost-plus means the U.S. government pays Halliburton all its expenses -- its costs -- plus 2 percent profit on top.

So far the Army has committed $7.2 billion on this cost-plus contract to Halliburton, which has been criticized for its performance in Iraq. The company has drawn additional political fire because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, a former Halliburton CEO.

Henry Bunting, a former Halliburton purchasing officer, said he heard a common refrain in 2003 in Kuwait from managers at KBR -- also known as Kellogg Brown & Root -- a division of Halliburton: "Don't worry about price. It's cost-plus."

"There is no question the taxpayer is getting screwed," said Bunting, who was an Army staff sergeant in Vietnam. "There is no incentive for KBR or their subs to try to reduce costs. No matter what it costs, KBR gets 100 percent back, plus overhead, plus their profit."

The Army said it is satisfied with Halliburton's performance.

"They are providing essential services to our troops every day," said Daniel Carlson, a spokesman for the Army Field Support Command, which oversees the contract. "All the reports from the field come back that they are providing the services adequately."

Shifting political costs

Even if the Pentagon could tally all the layers of profit and overhead, it would struggle to compare the cost of using contractors such as Zovko in Iraq against the cost of soldiers.

According to a Defense Department Web site, a soldier with Zovko's experience and final rank (he was a sergeant) would receive about $38,000 a year in base pay and housing and subsistence allowances. That figure would not reflect additional costs for things such as health and retirement benefits or combat pay.

Yeah, I don't think it's even close to possible that a military contractor costs less than a soldier.

[TheEschaton]

And then they kill and torture Iraqi civilians.

[Warriorbird]

That's a win win to some people.

[Some Rogue]

And then they kill and torture Iraqi civilians.


Well I know some Iraqis, and they say only the ones who deserved it got killed.

[Gan]

ROFL

[Warriorbird]

Torture is hilarious.

[Gan]

Torture is hilarious.

So is the fact that you completely miss what I'm laughing about.

[Warriorbird]

Not at all. I'd rather master anecdotes than me too posting.

I think the paradox of Republican policies doing good things for the economy and then turning around and being incredibly spendthrift with the surplus (on Iraq and misdirected Katrina rebuilding efforts) is far more amusing.

Then when faced by "feel good" policy Bush is all NO! Too expensive!

[Some Rogue]

Torture is hilarious.

Only if it were yours.


Not at all. I'd rather master anecdotes than me too posting.


Right right, because I've never commented on you knowing everyone before....

::grins smugly::

[Warriorbird]

Second bit was to Ganalon.

:)

I understand that you feel everything's about you though.

I think that the Democrats should have made Bush veto more sooner.

[Kembal]

Was just reading over the second article/letter that Gan posted, and this stuck out at me:


Furthermore, H.R. 1495 side-steps any significant reforms to this pork-barrel agency. Katrina taught the country costly lessons about the importance of truly independent peer review for costly, controversial or critical projects. The National Academy of Sciences and other independent organizations have recommended independent review as well.

You know, I wonder if these organizations actually read the bills before opposing them.

The last sentence of the NYT article:


The bill calls for an independent peer review process of all Army Corps projects costing $45 million or more, a bid to cut down on wasteful spending.

[Gan]

::grins smugly::

CAREFUL NOW! PEOPLE WILL CALL YOU OUT FOR BEING TOO SMUG!

[Some Rogue]

CAREFUL NOW! PEOPLE WILL CALL YOU OUT FOR BEING TOO SMUG!

I could never live up to yours. You set the bar too high sensei.

[Gan]

Not at all. I'd rather master anecdotes than me too posting.
Still not what I'm laughing about. But hey, I bet that sounded good to you!


I think the paradox of Republican policies doing good things for the economy and then turning around and being incredibly spendthrift with the surplus (on Iraq and misdirected Katrina rebuilding efforts) is far more amusing.
And yet a majority of the Republicans voted to override the veto. Wierd paradox you have there.


Then when faced by "feel good" policy Bush is all NO! Too expensive!
The more I read about this bill and the benefits it describes, the more I'm becomming convinced that the veto is a head-fake by Bush. I just dont know what game he's setting up for. Its not like he's cashing in on any political capital, especially since he has none at this point.

:thinking:

[Warriorbird]

Overriding the veto also counts as being spendthrift with the surplus. I don't think this bill should be passed. I just think Bush's reasoning looks somewhat suspect when compared with his broader economic actions.

[Daniel]

Maybe. But that still does not address the fact that they also may be cheaper.

Yea, because the war in Iraq has been a text book example of fiscal responsibility. If the United States Military hadn't decided to outsource the bulk of its duties, it's likely that we wouldn't have *already* spent about 70 billion dollars, and be alot further along than we are.

[ViridianAsp]

See . . . that's borderline poverty for a family where I live.

The local paper just published some article saying that it takes a minimum of 130k household income to sustain comfortable living (paying on the median house value and other various expenses) without dipping into the red.

:shrug:

Same here, where I live.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

Blackwater's costs don't seem all that cheap.