The Smokescreen Spewed at the Public Doesn't Fool Them

Once upon a time was there a responsible head of state? Yes. I remember when keeping the country safe wasn't a political slogan. I remember when there were measures congress and the executive fought out with each other, but public interests were served and crimes against the public were prosecuted.

Nostalgia time? In light of the Cretin in Chief's speech yesterday in Arkansas, yeh. That's about all we've got except the expectation that in October 2008 we can turn out a vote to start winning back all that's been thrown out in the six+ years of one-party theft.

Bush used an appearance here Monday to chastise Democratic leaders for failing to send him even one of the 12 annual spending bills more than two weeks into the new fiscal year, and he eagerly vowed to veto what he deems excessive spending.

Democrats fired back by highlighting the one veto Bush has exercised: the rejection of a dramatic expansion of a popular children's health insurance program.

The backdrop for this confrontation belies its intensity. Just last week, the Office of Management and Budget reported that the deficit in the 2007 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, fell to $163 billion, barely half of what it was two years ago and the lowest in five years. While still a hefty chunk of money, the deficit now represents just 1.2 percent of the overall economy, lower than the average rate over the past four decades.

Yet Bush has gotten no credit for that with the public, prompting the White House to look for opportunities to fight Congress over spending and reinforce his credentials with a disaffected Republican base. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that just 27 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the deficit, matching his all-time low on the issue, compared with 64 percent who disapprove.

Little wonder, then, that the White House staff made sure to hang two giant banners that said "Fiscal Responsibility" behind the president for his talk with local business leaders here. "We're beginning to get control of that deficit," Bush said. "And the reason why is that a growing economy yields additional tax revenues. And then when you work with Congress to set priorities . . . you can reduce your deficit without raising taxes."

As the federal government operates on a stopgap spending appropriation, Bush accused Democrats of wanting to add an extra $200 billion in spending over the next five years and dared them to send him spending bills he could reject.

"You're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington," he said. "The Congress gets to propose, and if it doesn't meet needs as far as I'm concerned, I get to veto. And that's precisely what I intend to do."

Stanley Collender, managing director of Qorvis Communications and a federal budget specialist, said the debate is disconnected from the improving deficit numbers. "It's purely a power play by the White House," he said. "If these spending bills were coming from a Republican-controlled Congress, the president would be signing them and applauding the House and Senate for their fiscal responsibility."

Forget that the borrowing from Social Security masks the full damage of war funding on the budget.

This display of self aggrandisement has become the standard for presidential posing, so it is pretty heartening to read the comment section and find almost no support. The public has seen enough of the effects of his moronic conduct of the country's business to wipe out the smirk on any faces other than the president's.

Although the level of writing in comments was not anywhere as good as that at the editorial section, I think you should see what support the c-i-c's threats, lies and other drivel got.

The support:

************************************************************************************
nychap44 wrote:
Prediction: When Clinton shut down nonessential government operations by not approving the budget the "main stream" press backed him and placed the blame on the congress. If Bush does the same this year the headlines will blame Bush for shutting down the government and congress will get a pass.

This will prove once and for all that the press reporting is completely biased against the Republicans.

************************************************************************************

sque1 wrote:
Like it or not Bush will have the upper hand in these spending bills because even though you can get votes in the Senate to override a veto I believe Bush thinks he has enough GOP members in the house to uphold anything he decides to veto. What would make more sense if dems weren't playing games all the time, they would work with the WH and show voters that they can lead. You are all the time telling us how low Bush is in the polls, but he rates higher than congress.

Bush is not on the ticket in 08, congress is. The fact that the GOP in congress is going to uphold the SCHIP veto tells me that the majority of voters are not paying that much attention and moveon.org spent a lot of money for nothing.

************************************************************************************

HUDAHAR wrote:
SCHIP...Just another give-away to illegals.

*************************************************************************************

Yep, that's all folks!

It's hardly worth putting up the opposition here, we can pretty uniformly see through this smokescreen of misstatements, falsifications and outright lies. But I will put up one pretty thoroughly researched comment, just to give the color of what thought looks like.

*************************************************************************************

FredEvil wrote:
The most frightening part of all of this, is that 30% of the country, despite all evidence before them, are still of the opinion that Bush and the GOP have the faintest clue what 'Fiscal Responsibility' is.

Federal Budget
1992 - 1.6 Trillion Dollars
2000 - 1.8 Trillion Dollars

That is an increase of 200 Billion dollars over EIGHT years under Clinton.

Bush's first budget?
2001 - 2.0 Trillion dollars (an increase of 200 Billion in ONE year, it took Clinton EIGHT YEARS to increase the budget that much!)
2007 - 2.9 TRILLION dollars

That's right, the annual budget increased 1.1 TRILLION dollars annually, over less time than Clinton's increase of 200 Billion.

Who is it that's for small government and fiscal responsibility again?

nychapp, how is the 'media' supposed to be biased against an individual who never met a Republican Bill he didn't like(regardless of it's pork content), yet refuses to pass virtually anything that comes out of a Democratic Congress, including a moderate increase in spending for disadvantaged children's healthcare (which would cover 8 million children for 7 billion a year) yet demands nearly THIRTY times that much money for the debacle in Iraq, that is entirely his fault to begin with?!

It's as though he doesn't understand what a 'Compassionate Conservative' is supposed to be. Come to think of it, I don' think I do either.
************************************************************************************

It makes us all proud to be on the side of the facts. The DFH's have tried to keep the country from a disaster once again, and once again they're pulling it back from the edge. If we can keep 2009the criminals from attacking Iran, we should make it through to 2009.

This time, the perpetrators should not have the option of slithering away to what Molly Ivins, this a.m. in Eschaton comments, calls Snake Island, to regroup and begin again to whittle away at the foundations of our nation. We have seen that disgrace doesn't bother them, they're out for the money. This time it needs to be prison sentences and confiscation.