- Jan 17, 2006
- 375
- 0
- 0
Bush takes no responsibility at all. Then he comes back and says Democrats will raise taxes and hocus pocus. However, he never once explains the mess we're in and how we're going to get out of it.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/bush_congress_o.html
What are you opinions?
Discuss.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/bush_congress_o.html
Originally posted: March 31, 2007
Bush vs Marine: Peanuts and war
Posted by Mark Silva at 9:06 am CDT
"I like peanuts as much as the next guy,'' President Bush said today, "but I believe the security of our troops should come before the security of our peanut crop.''
And with these unlikely words, delivered in his weekly radio address, the president spelled out some of his complaints about the $100-billion-plus war-spending bills that the House and Senate have approved which are laden with "special-interest'' projects such as $75 million for peanut farmers -- not to mention the timelines for withdrawals of American military forces from Iraq that the president vows to veto.
But it's the timelines, more than the peanut cash, which the Democratic Party wants to talk about. Retired Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, "a loyal Marine'' and Iraq and Gulf War veteran, delivers the party's response to the president with a message that: "These bills both demand something that previous Congresses did not ? accountability from the administration. Both bills demand that the president continue to verify that we are moving Iraq towards stability, and that we are on track to disengage our combat troops from the Iraqi Civil War by 2008.''
The peanut money really is peanuts, however, compared to the spending that Bush is criticizing in proposed new federal budgets that the House and Senate also have advanced for 2008. Their $3-trillion-plus spending plans for next year include more than what the president has sought, he said - $145 billion more in the Senate plan, $213 billion more in the House plan. And that, Bush warns, means raising taxes.
An Iraq and Gulf war veteran, retired Marine Lt. Col. Andrew Horne also has appeared in a television ad backed by VoteVets.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. Urging Americans to withdraw from "Iraqi Civil War,'' he delivers the Democratic radio response to Bush today.
This is the text of the president's radio address:
"Good morning. In recent days, the House and Senate each passed emergency war spending bills that undercut our troops in the field. Each of the Democrats' bills would substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for that of our generals on the ground. Each bill would impose restrictive conditions on our military commanders. Each bill would also set an arbitrary deadline for surrender and withdrawal in Iraq, and I believe that would have disastrous consequences for our safety here at home.
"The Democrats loaded up their bills with billions of dollars in domestic spending completely unrelated to the war, including $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol, $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' Salaries and Expenses Account, and $74 million for secure peanut storage. I like peanuts as much as the next guy, but I believe the security of our troops should come before the security of our peanut crop. For all these reasons, that is why I made it clear to the Democrats in Congress, I will veto the bill.
"Democrats in the House and the Senate also recently passed their annual budget resolutions. Their budgets would raise your taxes and raise government spending in Washington. And their budgets fail to address the most serious challenge to our Nation's fiscal health: the unsustainable growth in entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare.
"Overall, the Democrats would raise taxes by a total of nearly $400 billion over the next five years. To put this in perspective, this would be the largest tax increase in our Nation's history, even larger than the tax increase the Democrats passed the last time they controlled Congress.
"Let me explain what it will mean for your annual tax bill if the Democrats get their way. If you have children, the Democrats would raise your taxes by $500 for each child. If you're a family of four making $60,000 a year, the Democrats would raise your taxes by more than $1,800. If you're a single mother with two children working to make ends meet, the Democrats would raise your taxes by more than $1,000. If you are a small business owner working to meet a payroll, the Democrats would raise your taxes by almost $4,000. And more than five million low-income Americans who currently pay no income taxes because of our tax relief would once again have to pay. Whether you have a family, work for a living, own a business, or are simply struggling to get by on a low income, the Democrats want to raise your taxes.
"The Democrats plan to spend all those extra tax dollars. In the Senate, Democrats have passed a budget that would spend $145 billion more than I have requested over the next five years. In the House, Democrats have passed a budget that would spend even more -- $213 billion above my request.
"With their budgets, the Democrats have revealed their true intentions. During the last campaign, Democrats said that under their "pay as you go" approach, they would pay for their new spending. Now we see what they meant by that. The Democrats have chosen a "tax as you go" approach that requires you to cut your spending to pay higher taxes. And Democrats will use these higher taxes to spend more of your money on their special interest projects.
"Our Nation cannot afford such reckless taxing and spending. Under my Administration, we have kept your taxes low and restrained government spending in Washington. Now, America's economy is leading the world, with an economic expansion that has produced 42 months of uninterrupted job growth and created more than 7.5 million new jobs. The fastest way to stop this growth in its tracks would be to allow the Democrats in Congress to impose higher taxes on you so they can spend more of your money.
"I believe there's a better way to balance our Federal budget. Last month, I sent Congress a plan that would eliminate the Federal deficit in five years, without raising your taxes. In the months ahead, I will work with Republicans and responsible Democrats in Congress to pass a disciplined budget and to stop the Democratic leadership from taking our Nation back to tax-and-spend policies of the past. By setting clear spending priorities and keeping taxes low, we can keep our economy growing, support our troops in the war on terror, and ensure our children and grandchildren inherit a more prosperous and hopeful America.
"Thank you for listening.'''
This is the text of retired Lt. Col. Andrew Horne's response for the Democratic Party:
"Good Morning.
"I?m Andrew Horne, coming to you from Louisville, Ky. I served in the United States Marine Corps for 27 years, including time in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and then again in 2004 and 2005 as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am proud of my service, and very proud of those men and women currently in harm?s way who are doing their best in a terribly difficult situation.
"When I deployed to Iraq, I believed what the President and his advisors said about the necessity of the war. I believed that the decision-makers in Washington would make sure we had everything we needed to get the job done, and we wouldn?t be there any longer than we absolutely had to. What I saw there changed my mind.
"I saw troops riding in Humvees without the proper armor and units dangerously undermanned for the mission they were asked to accomplish. Most importantly, I saw that while we won every battle, there was little good we could do militarily unless the Iraqis took responsibility for resolving their political differences. Yet no one in Washington offered benchmarks for success that would motivate the Iraqis to resolve their differences and lead us home.
"In short, the Commander-in-Chief has failed to properly lead the troops, and previous Congresses didn?t ask the tough questions, or demand accountability. The result is the mess we are in today.
"This week, the majority in Congress has taken the lead in providing for our troops. Supplemental spending bills passed by the House and Senate provide a much-needed change in the President?s Iraq policy. This legislation also provides billions for our troops, giving them the proper protection and training they need to survive in Iraq, as well as funds to fix Walter Reed, provide health care to our troops and veterans, and research and heal traumatic brain injuries that many troops suffered.
"Some of the top generals who served this nation with honor have endorsed what the House and Senate passed. The bills closely mirror what was proposed by the non-partisan Iraq Study Group that was appointed by President Bush. I know my fellow troops are eager to get what the bills provide.
"At the same time, these bills both demand something that previous Congresses did not ? accountability from the administration. Both bills demand that the President continue to verify that we are moving Iraq towards stability, and that we are on track to disengage our combat troops from the Iraqi Civil War by 2008.
"Accountability is something this administration has demanded of everyone else. Go to the website of the White House, and put in a search for the word ?accountability.? What comes up is a list of nearly 2,000 pages on the site that mention the word.
"Right there in the President?s first major policy proposal, the first bullet point in the brief on the No Child Left Behind Act reads: ?Increase Accountability for Student Performance: States, districts and schools that improve achievement will be rewarded. Failure will be sanctioned.?
"It's ironic that an administration that has touted its commitment to tying accountability to funding for things like schools or social programs is so opposed to any performance evaluation itself, especially with American lives on the line.
"Both Houses of Congress have done their jobs and will soon finish a bill that will provide for the troops. When they?re done, the only person who could keep funds from reaching troops would be the President. If the President vetoes this bill because he doesn?t want to formally demonstrate progress in Iraq, never in the history of war would there be a more blatant example of a Commander-in-Chief undermining the troops. There is absolutely no excuse for the President to withhold funding for the troops, and if he does exercise a veto, Congress must side with the troops and override it.
"As a loyal Marine who loves my country and my fellow troops and veterans, I ask you, Mr. President, please do not withhold funding from our troops because you are afraid to change course and show progress in Iraq.
"Thank you, and good afternoon.''
What are you opinions?
Discuss.