Thursday, July 20, 2006

President Bush and his first veto

President Bush issued his first veto and he vetoed a bill that would expand "stem cell" research.

It is amazing to me that he has signed so many terrible bills into law in the last five and a half years and when he finally decides to veto a bill he chooses this one.

As a fiscal conservative there are so many bills he should have vetoed in the last few years including:

No Child Left Behind
Prescription Drugs for Seniors
A massive aid package for New Orleans that is way to large
Huge budgets full of THOUSANDS of wasteful projects and earmarks...

President Bush proved to me again that he is NOT a fiscal conservative (he is a social conservative). President Bush is another large Government Republican.

I have recently heard a lot of right wing talk show hosts accusing the Democratic party of pandering to the anti-war portion of their political base of supporters. I agree with those on the right wing on that issue.

That being said, Bush is pandering to the social conservative portion of his political base. He is doing the exact same thing The Democratic Party is doing with their anti-war base.

Both Party's are pandering...

If you think President Bush did the right thing by vetoing this bill please let us know why you agree with his veto in the comment section...

I am really interested in knowing what the local right wing thinks including Tim Zank, Andrew Kaduk, AWB, and William Larsen.

Mike Sylvester

8 comments:

Andrew Kaduk said...

I'd be happy to weigh-in, and my opinion shouldn't surprise anyone who reads my stuff.

My opinion? Good veto.

Why? We already don't have the money for much of what the government promises, so why should we lift a prohibition on the government funding something else?

I don't care if doctors, labs, researchers or whoever want to poke, prod, dissect, test, taste or stack frozen embryos on the heads of one another, but the government has about as much business funding the venture as they have in paying farmers not to grow anything on portions of their land (yeah, I hate government-initiated agricultural price fixing as well).

What many folks don't realize is that when the government funds research for medical purposes, it is just a big fat subsidy for big fat business in disguise. You see, when a breakthrough is finally made in disease prevention by virtue of government sponsored research, the person or group who makes the discovery holds exclusive rights to the distribution of the cure/procedure/drug or whatever it is....NOT the American people. These doctors/groups will likely turn around and SELL their research data to the highest bidder or bidders, who will then take it to MARKET. All this does in reality is allows a couple of people to get rich on the taxpayers' tab.

Anyone who cannot see this as the inevitable course of events stemming from government subsidized research is either blind or just not cynical enough to understand America's version of faux-capitalism.

Major players in the fields of pharmacal medical R&D are foaming at the mouth to get their hands on government money for this crap because there is absolutely NO guarantee that the research will yield any positive results, so they don't wish to invest their shareholders' or their personal money on such an expensive gamble.

My opinion? Don't let those bastards make any money on the backs of the taxpayers...they are already double dipping by taking government money to develop drugs and then selling it at a very high markup back to the taxpayers at the pharmacy counters and hospitals of our nation.

I probably just made enemies of every diabetic on the planet (including several closely related to me), but if this research is as valuable as everyone seems to think it is, someone will privately fund it...it only makes sense.

Andrew Kaduk said...

...Just for the record, I do feel that this should have been but one in a long line of vetos for W. He has signed his name to more legislative flotsam and jetsam than I care to think about. I'll bet I could hand him a power of attorney form and he'd sign that over to me...

So yes, in this case he made the right decision, but for the wrong reason. That's not very comforting to me.

Tim Zank said...

The Kadukster beat me to it! I simply don't feel it's governments place to FUND such research, much for the same reasons Andrew pointed out.

One would think that with all the hysteria, the Bush Administration was trying to ban stem cell research. That certainly has been the implication by the press and the liberal pundits.

All W did was deny the govt the opportunity to waste my tax dollars. Let the private sector
fund it.

Mike I agree with you on a couple of things. I too wish he had veto'd
all the other ridiculous spending bills and yes you are right, he is not a fiscal conservative. I also agree that both sides pander, as they have since the beginning of recorded time. I don't condone it, I simply tolerate it as the choices are limited.

I don't agree with a lot of the things W has done and it would be preposterous to think anyone would agree all the time with anyone.

I add up the pros and the cons and even with all his faults, his pros far outweigh his cons....

Oh, and thanks for the "right wing" monaker!

Robert Enders said...

There is what is called "hard science", scientific research and experimentation that has no immediate practical or commercial value. A good example of this is astronomy. Nobody who observes stars through telescopes has any reasonable expectation of ever traveling to one in person. But even this type of science has value in that it combats mysticism. Its important to know that the sun is a big ball of hydrogen and helium and not Ra riding his flaming chariot across the sky.

That being said, I think scientific research should be privately funded. Hard science can still be funded by voluntary contributions.

Debbie said...

Tim Zank wrote:
"I add up the pros and the cons and even with all his faults, his pros far outweigh his cons...."

Hey Tim, first of all, let me say the way you worded this is great, "con" is a perfect word for a lot of what he's done. But I digress.

The real reason I'm writing is to ask if you will post your list of pros and cons so we can see how you made your decision about Bush.

I'm just curious.

Vote Wise said...

The big domestic issue today was stem cell research, and abortion politics ruled the day. There was the Pro-life side which prevailed via President’s veto, and the congressional side who sent the bill to the president. You have to commend the President for standing his ground. He is committed to his position in the face of logic, high emotion, and tremendous pressure. Major players in both parties hold this issue highly. The abortion foes see the issue as a test for the beginning of life, but the embryo has no life without a mother. Of course this bill only pertained to government funded research, private research is in no way inhibited. The victory for the Pro-life side is symbolic and meaningless. The pro-choice side lost nothing, but had nothing to gain. The real loss is to the researchers who count on government to fund them. I don’t really agree with either side of this issue. The government might have a roll in making sure the harvesting of stem cells isn’t abused, but that would presume our government is capable of that. Other than that the government should stay out of it. Few of the people who voted on this bill know anything about medicine, and I doubt their knowledge of clinical research is very extensive either. The government could possibly have a roll in encouraging private research through participation and/or funding, but I don’t think we need to target funding to the abortion debate.

William Larsen said...

I agree with the veto. Bush should have vetoed the Rx Drug Bill along with many others. He should stand the line on spending and veto those bills that don't add up. Representatives add so much pork to bills, it has to stop and now is as good a time as any. Would the country go into default if he vetoed a major appropriations bill or increasing the debt limit, no!

If he vetoed increasing the debt limit, all it would do is force some hard choices no one wants to make. The tax revenues coming in could pay the interest on the debt, but all that other spending, Medicare Rx Drugs, aid to foreign countries, Education, the bridge to no where and more would finally be looked at.

Sylvia Smith asked me a similar question and when I answered I would not vote for increasing the debt if elected, I got the distinct impression from her tone and follow up questions she thought that I was wrong.

Many have been layed off from a job. they have had to make the tough choice of what to spend their limited funds on. The government should do the same.

Tim Zank said...

Debbie, Sorry I didn't respond sooner...been a tad hectic this week...at any rate...heres my short list.

Pros:

911 (Strong Leadership)
Judicial Appts.(conservative)
Tax Cuts (increased investment)
Economy (up)
Unemployment (down)
Iraq (the big picture in the mideast is, we have to be there, forever)

Cons:

Immigration (his heart's in the right place but we can't do it his way)
New Orleans (caved in to perceived public sentiment..sent way too much money to way too many stupid people)
Huge deficits (I can appreciate leveraged financing but these deficits make me nervous.)

Of course you can blast holes in my list as I could yours, as there are two sides of the coin.

I genuinely like the guy, and I think he gets short shrifted because he isn't articulate.