Fox's Goler falsely claimed that Bush has never issued a veto "because Congress has always stayed below his spending limit"
SUMMARY: Fox News falsely reported the White House claim that President Bush has never vetoed a bill "because Congress has always stayed below his spending limit." In fact, Bush signed the 2005 transportation bill, which cost $286.4 billion, after initially threatening to reject any bill that cost more than $256 billion.
On the March 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler uncritically repeated a false claim -- which he attributed to anonymous Bush administration "aides" -- that the reason President Bush has never vetoed a bill is that "Congress has always stayed below his spending limit." In fact, in August 2005, Bush signed into law a $286.4 billion transportation bill after initially threatening to reject any bill that cost more than $256 billion.
Goler repeated the administration's false claim during a segment on Bush's proposal for a "line-item veto," which would allow Bush to remove individual earmarks (commonly referred to by critics as "pork-barrel projects") from spending bills.
An August 4, 2005, Washington Post article noted: "In 2004, Bush demanded that no highway bill exceed $256 billion. Under pressure, he increased his limit to $284 billion this year." But even Bush's revised spending limit was more than $2 billion below the final bill's official price tag of $286.4 billion.
In addition, the six-year spending bill may actually cost $295 billion. As Media Matters for America has noted, the bill's $286.4 billion cost does not include an additional $8.5 billion counted separately under what the bill's opponents called an accounting "gimmick."
According to an August 11, 2005, Washington Post article, the bill contained a record 6,371 earmarks inserted by members of Congress.
From the March 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GOLER: Some lawmakers see earmarks as a way they can decide how to spend money their states are already due, like highway funds, and they won't give up the power easily. Meanwhile, aides say the president has never used his veto because Congress has always stayed below his spending limit, even if it added some things he didn't like.
I was about to try to draw an analogy between the salary cap and Bush's vast overspending when I thought of a better analogy: George Bush and Isiah Thomas. Both are ridiculed by their peers for their poor decision making. Both are seemingly arrogant even in the face of their vast failures. Both have morgaged the futures of their franchises (Knicks and USA) on failed long-term contracts and decisions the consequences of which will last long after they are gone. The only real difference was that once Isiah was good at something and a champion. Bush has failed at pretty much every venture he has undertaken.
if bush's "aides" say it, it's good enough for fox.
Bush cannot blame runaway spending on Congress. It's all HIS doing; the debt, the deficit, the mushrooming size of government, the boondoggles, the pork, the whole enchilada. Congress is dancing to Bush's tune, so let's not hear CONGRESS needs to "control spending". It's all Bush. Now it's official.
"Deficits don't matter. Reagan showed us that." -- Dick "I Never Seaid That" Cheney
These reporters are more like official court artists, they paint flattering portraits of ugly kings. This is an effort to make the prez look likea traditional conservative, fiscally restrained, when he is anything but! Biggest US deficit ever, medicare drug program fiasco, a war wiping out the treasury, enormous credit debt to foreign entitites......it's insane!
In FDR's 12 + years as President, he used his veto power 372 times, 635 if you include pocket vetoes, and that was with a Democratic House and Senate at least during WWII. It didn't matter that they shared the same party affiliation. Congress had one vision, FDR had, in 372 cases, a different one. Together, they compromised.
Bush’s ZERO vetoes in 5 + years is solid proof that checks and balances in the US government are dead. Bush has never used this power because you don't need to compromise when everyone does your bidding, which perfectly describes the rubberstamp Republican Congress.
They are a disgrace.
Bush’s ZERO vetoes in 5 + years is solid proof that checks and balances in the US government are dead.
Well, could just mean that Republicans have been in power for 5 + years. And therefore, gets bills to his liking.
Checks and balances are being eroded by a Republican majority that are giving the Execitive branch unprecedented powers.
What you are suggesting is that there's a Republican groupthink synergy, one branch feeding the other. Perhaps, but if the Congressional Republicans went against Bush's wishes, he'd've rolled out his veto power a dozen times by now. The “zero vetoes” reinforces the idea that Congress takes its marching orders from the White House.
Goler falsely believes that Bush has never issued a veto "because Congress has always stayed below his spending limit".
Since it is apparent that TV News Reporters are not very knowledgable about what they talk about, I wonder if they perhaps are just reading teleprompters or something.
If TV News Reporters just read from a script, then they they provide no objectivity whatsoever -- they, the reporters themselves, would never feel that they are ever being anything but truthful, as long as they simply want to keep a job.
what he said was untrue. that's the point.
I in no way meant to imply otherwise, and I hope that people do not infer that I said he was making a correct statement.
I was trying to bring up some sort of generalization about the possibility that Goler was not knowingly making a false statement.
i see what you're saying.
Don't most reporters write their own copy? It is the anchors who usually have others compose stories for them, from what I understand.