Arkansans in D.C. mostly unimpressed by speech
Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008
WASHINGTON — President Bush’s call for cooperation on Capitol Hill was greeted with skepticism by the Democratic members of Arkansas’ congressional delegation, who responded coolly to the president’s final State of the Union speech Monday night.
Blanche Lincoln, the state’s senior senator, called the speech “disingenuous” and referred to it as a “lecture.”
Only Rep. John Boozman, Arkansas’ lone Republican member of Congress, gave the speech high marks.
“The president was reaching out,” to Democrats, Boozman said. “The American public is sick and tired of its representatives not working together.”
While Lincoln said she was confident that Congress and the president can agree on a shortterm economic stimulus package, she said he did not explain how he would pay for long-term proposals.
Lincoln said he failed to make a case for how the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts can be extended and still pay for the No Child Left Behind federal education policy, health care plan changes and clean energy programs.
Lincoln, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she was disappointed that Bush didn’t mention the farm bill, versions of which have passed both the House and the Senate.
Bush proposed to veto any spending bill that didn’t cut earmarks — spending on statespecific programs often slipped into bills by either a member of Congress or the administration — in half.
He also said he would direct federal agencies to ignore any earmark that was not vetted by committees in either the House or the Senate.
“The easiest way for Congress to handle that is to cut out all Republican earmarks,” said Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat.
Pryor complained that Bush had not cooperated with Democrats in the Senate in previous years.
“With President Bush, the devil is always in the details,” he said.
Rep. Marion Berry, a Democrat who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, questioned the constitutionality of Bush’s proposal that federal agencies ignore certain earmarks.
He noted that Bush had signed into law spending bills passed by a Republican Congress that had higher levels of earmarks than were passed during the previous session of Congress, under Democratic leadership.
He said he was “offended” at Bush’s talk of making sure soldiers’ needs were properly taken care of.
“He sent our men and women into battle without body armor and uparmored Humvees,” Berry said.
Rep. Vic Snyder noted that some of Bush’s proposals, such as calling for a school voucher program or beefing up federal help for religious social agencies, spring up each election year.
“He knows they won’t go anywhere,” said Snyder, a Democrat. “He hasn’t pushed them in any significant way.”
Snyder, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that the Bush’s escalation of forces in Iraq had improved the situation there, but said that Bush did not spend enough time presenting the choices facing the country in foreign policy and military matters.
“Part of an inspiring speech is candor,” Snyder said. “There wasn’t enough fleshing out of the length of the commitment and the expense,” necessary to succeed in Iraq.
Rep. Mike Ross, also a Democrat, said he was disappointed Bush didn’t offer a new direction in Iraq. He said the surge is working, only because it is costing the federal government “$ 16 million” each hour. “You can effect change in the short-term,” he said. “What happens when you stop spending that ?”
Ross also said he was disappointed in Bush’s approach to immigration. While Bush touted an increase in federal border agents and the construction of border fences, he also stressed a need for foreign workers to come here legally.
“He basically called for amnesty, which encourages illegal immigration,” Ross said.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
