budget won't pay dubya's 2000 guards

[blackumbrella]

free border guards

President Bush (news - web sites) will not ask Congress for enough money to add 2,000 agents to patrol the nation's borders in his 2006 budget, even though he signed a bill last month authorizing the increase.

 

[Tide and True]

free border guards

I've always wondered why immigration and border control are such lonely issues -- never invited to the Homeland Security parties, it seems. Either they don't weak enough make-up. Or the dude throwing this bash is a little too concerned about retaining the Hispanic vote.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

This is reminiscent of Clinton and all his unfunded mandates.

You have to love it. We can send millions, if not billions in foreign aid and tsunami relief, but we can fund guards to patrol our borders.

 

[NYBamaFan]

DBF,

In the last 3 minutes, I have read two posts of yours. One said that Bush is spending too much. Another - in this thread - says that he is not spending enough. Am I confused or are you only upset when the money gets spent on projects that do not meet with your approval?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I think it's misapplied spending is my point. We should be spending to secure our borders, yet we send the money to Indonesia for relief aid.

We were told the effort in Iraq would cost X amount and now he's asking for an additional amount. We were also told that Iraq would reimburse us for some of the costs and that has since been waived.

What is your priority? Would you rather spend money protecting this country or spend it on foreign aid whether it be Iraq or Indonesia?

 

[NYBamaFan]

I would rather that we passed a law making it illegal for the government to spend more than it collects in taxes (except in times of war, and then, only in self defense). I do not want my children paying for my mistakes. I want the standing president to be held responsible for overspending NOW, not by historians. Bush is burying my children under a mountain of debt...

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I agree to a point, but argue the Congress is ultimately responsible for the debt incurred by this country as they are the ones that pass spending legislation.

Sure the President has the option of vetoing the legislation, but none of the recent Presidents have shown that kind of fortitude.

 

[NYBamaFan]

In the end, someone must be held responsible if we hope to put an end to run-away spending. While I fully understand the role played by Congress, the president submits the budget and must sign every subsequent spending bill. Our presidents have given up their efforts to control spending. To get what they "need", they allow unnecessary "pork" into virtually every spending bill. What may have been budgeted at $200M might cost $400M, not because of budget over-runs, but because of the "pork" added to get the required votes - even votes from their own party. Sounds like modern extortion and it is disgusting - and someone must be held accountable. I say that that someone should be the president. If you try to hold a body of people responsible, you will never get anywhere...

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

In the end, someone must be held responsible if we hope to put an end to run-away spending. While I fully understand the role played by Congress, the president submits the budget and must sign every subsequent spending bill. Our presidents have given up their efforts to control spending. To get what they "need", they allow unnecessary "pork" into virtually every spending bill. What may have been budgeted at $200M might cost $400M, not because of budget over-runs, but because of the "pork" added to get the required votes - even votes from their own party. Sounds like modern extortion and it is disgusting - and someone must be held accountable. I say that that someone should be the president. If you try to hold a body of people responsible, you will never get anywhere...

I can't argue with that.