Congress finally shows its strength

VetostampWhatever one thinks of the costly water-projects bill that Congress successfully defended against a presidential veto this week, it found the legislative branch asserting its constitutional equality with the executive branch. That’s been all too rare during George W. Bush’s commanding presidency. But the veto override, which did not have help from Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, may not lead to a more powerful Congress, especially on difficult issues such as Iraq spending.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

10 Comments

  1. political_mom
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Now you watch, ratings for congress will go up this week.

  2. Ben
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    It’s about time. Now lets hope enough Repukes cross over to pass SCHIP.

  3. The Phantom
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Brownback can afford to take up Roberts position as the Chimps Chump, since he isn’t standing for re-election.

  4. lindainks55
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    If ever, even once, bush had shown any indication he might be the tiniest bit financially responsible then his words might mean something today when he tries to be something he never has been.

  5. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I speculate that the veto override was more a case of “There’s something ($$) here for everyone” than anything else. Gotta bring home the bacon, what with an election year approaching.

    I’m sure there were worthy projects funded within the bill, but being a bit too uninspired to go read it, suspect there were some projects that, to be polite, didn’t meet “worthiness”.

  6. Kansas
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    It’s getting close to the end of some Congressional terms, they needed to bring home the ‘pork.’

    Vaughn Tolle is correct in his assessment.

  7. Max
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Strength?

    You call a Compromise of $25 billion for this bill, when the House wanted $15 billion and the Senate wanted $14 billion, strength?

    Was Congress not able to compromise at $15 billion, and save the taxpayer $10 billion?

    Tell ya what Rhonda, I offer to pay you $20/hour, you asked for $25/hour, so let’s COMPROMISE and agree that you should be paid $5/hour, ok?

  8. David Atkins
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Max,

    I sent you a lil’ note from OSHA around 12:40 or so on the open thread. Just wanted to make sure you got it…

  9. thinkfirst
    Posted November 9, 2007 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    How about if the gutless congress stood up against something really important —like being aganist the war in Iraq. Who the hell gives a damn about the ‘water law’ veto?

  10. time for change
    Posted November 10, 2007 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    People should care about the water law bill. It is where the democrats put all of their pork barrel spending so that there would not be any sunshine put on it.

    How do you go from a difference of one billion dollars with the House at $15 billion and the Senate at $14 billion to $25 billion?

    It’s all pork barrel! So much for the dems changing things.