Bush's Vetos
Dean
Here's a trivia question: in his entire four and a half year stint in office to date, how many bills has President Bush vetoed?
The veto is a powerful weapon that all Presidents wield. Franklin Roosevelt used it dozens of times every year he was in office--indeed, he once asked his aides to find him something to veto just so he could send a message to Congress. The current President Bush's father used it with such regularity that he was often portrayed as a terrible obstructionist by his foes.
The current President has used his veto pen exactly zero times to date. I find myself wondering if any President in history went so long without ever exercising his veto power.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Presidential Vetos
- Bush's Vetos
The veto is used when the President disagrees with the bills passed by Congress. It is unlikely in the present climate that members of the same political party as the President will pass bills that the President finds necessary to veto.
No surprises here.
Since I do believe that most actions taken by the government are rarely well thought out, I think it is generally a good thing for the Presidency and the Congress to be held by different parties. We will see what results from the present situation, and I fear that we will come to regret many of the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President during this period.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html
Jefferson went two full terms without a single veto. Amusingly, neither John Adams nor John Quincy Adams had any vetoes--like father, like son I suppose. J.Q. Adams was the last President who served one full term or more without ever vetoing a bill directly or via the pocket veto.
The remarkable statistic, for me, is that FDR--who had a heavily Democratic Congress for all twelve plus years of his Presidency--is by far the leader in vetoes, with 372 regular and 263 pocket vetoes for a total of 635 vetoes--an average of about 53 per year. He was overridden nine times.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Flip the question around for FDR.
This president has always had a majority in congress why should he need to veto anything?
Did you see the last appropriations bill these guys sent up?
How about the McCain-Feingold "reform" boondoggle?
For such an active man, I didn't know Bush the Younger had such serious problems with his spine, mainly the fact that HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE. (at least when it comes to dealing with Congress.)
I mean, did he campaign on an austerity-budget platform? I recall it being more "compassionate conservatism", with little mention (and certainly no highlighting) of fiscal conservatism or pork-hating.
Remember, after all, that he needs the party on his side to get anything done, and the individual party members want pork to secure votes at home - even if he was a gung-ho anti-porker, which I'm not sure he is. (On the other hand, I'm not a Republican, so I didn't pay attention to the details of his campaign, so maybe he made some anti-pork noises I missed.)
I think that the others are right. W has not needed to vete anything. He serves at the pleasure of the Congress.
Pretty fascinating history link though, thanks M. Scott. :)
In the 2000 campaign, he had an excuse not to say anything due to the budget surplus. But come 9/11 and the end of our holiday from history, he should have gone over all federal spending with a fine tooth comb to pinch every penny he could, not sign off on a ballooning Medicare drug benefit (was it that hard to ask for means-testing?) He left himself wide open for Kerry to attack him in 2004 (though, truth be told, Kerry probably would have been even worse. Ever hear of the "Big Dig?")
If he had merely stood up to the Republicans in Congress and told him that there would be no pork for anyone (i.e. if you have a project that really needs funding, put it into the budget to begin with), and let them all clearly know that he had a veto pen and wasn't afraid to use it, we could have saved a lot on the national debt.
As far as needing Congress to get anything done, I believe he would have profited more by vetoing a few appropriations bills, just to let them know who has the final say on things. Then go to the media, use the bully pulpit and make your case about why you're right and they're wrong. (Either that, or start witholding his presence at those $1000 a plate fundraisers they all need to stay in office.)
Reagan wiped the floor with Tip O'Neil over the budget in the early 80's, just like Clinton did with Newt Gingrich over the government shutdown in 1995. And these were people from the opposite parties. And now we have W being whipped by Denny Hastert, Bill Young, Ted Stevens and Bill Frist? Pathetic.
Jimmy Carter enjoyed Democratic majorities in both houses, and used the veto 31 times, and was overriden twice. Lyndon Johnson in his 5 or so years in office always had Democratic majorities, used it 30 times, and was never overriden. Kennedy issued 21 vetoes even though his party controlled both bodies. Truman had Democratic majorities during most of his term in office and used the veto 250 times, and was overriden 12 times. FDR was the King--his party held the majority during his entire tenure, and he issued 635 vetoes, 9 overridden.
I do think one of the reasons Bush hasn't used the veto is that nine months into his Presidency he was presented with a war, and clearly put all his energy into that, and in getting Congress to give him what he asked for on that. In exchange he probably let them have almost anything else they wanted.
That said, his style has always been to get along with legislators if possible. That was his pattern in Texas, and it's held true in his current Presidency, although obviously having majorities in his party has made it easier for him to do that.
Look at the TEA-21 reauthorization (the highway bill). It's been stuck in committee for two years because Bush has promised to veto it if it contains as much spending as the Congressional Republicans want. So they "compromise" by not passing a highway bill at all. No bill, no veto.
Mike
That could be it.
W is very concerned about PR, and if he thinks it contributed to his father's downfall....
Or maybe he (or Rove) wants to be like Thomas Jefferson (presumably without the slave mistress).
Both the prison scandals and the pork-laden spending bills are small stuff compared to what Bush wants to do -- bring democracy to the Middle East and self-sufficiency to the middle class. To accomplish this, he's asking his allies to take tremendous heat (they don't call Social Security the "third rail of American politics" for nothing). In return he doesn't sweat the prison scandals, which drive liberals crazy, or the spending bills, which drive conservatives crazy. He's keeping his eyes on the long-term prize.
I admire him for it, even if I grate at some of the bills he's signed.
Mike