KUDLOW: You don't think he'll approve it.

Mr. CHENEY: It's veto-bait. The fact is that Congress spends time repassing legislation that he's already vetoed once. He's sustained that veto, has the votes to sustain an over-ride--to avoid an over-ride, sustain the veto. And their response is to come right back and do it all over again, wasting more time. They've got something like 19 legislative days left if they're going to meet their target adjournment date in mid-November. And they have yet to pass us--to get his signature to get to his desk, a single appropriations bill. This is--you've got to go back 20 years to find a time when the Congress was as inefficient as it is today. They're not doing their business. They're postponing action on the supplementals for Iraq. Their general approach, I think, has been remarkable in terms of not producing any benefits, not moving on the things that we need to be moving on.

KUDLOW: In your judgment, let's go back to that supplementals, about $50 billion supplemental. The Democrats have, from time to time, threatened to stop appropriations for the war as part of their anti-war efforts. Where do you stand on the supplements and negotiations in the backdrop? Or it's going to be larded with pork, might it be a veto-bait? Where is this going to come out?

Mr. CHENEY: Well, the reason for the supplemental is to pay what's necessary in order to be able to sustain the troops in the field, to be able to continue our operations on the global war on terror and in Afghanistan and Iraq and it's absolutely essential that it get passed. When Congress says, `Well, gee, we don't have time to deal with it now, we're going to lay it over and take it up next spring,' strikes me that's a classic example of them not stepping up and taking responsibility for a very important piece of business that they are responsible for. They've got to appropriate that money. I think it could partly be tied up with their attitude towards the war, but the fact of the matter is we are succeeding in Iraq. We are making significant progress. We do need that money. It goes to support the troops in their endeavors and it's hypocritical on the part of the Democrats to say they support the troops, but say, `Oh, by the way, we're not going to pass the money or appropriate funds that are needed in order to be able to sustain their activities.' This is money for equipment, to pay for all of those things that go into maintaining a first class fighting force and the Democrats are trying to duck it.

KUDLOW: Some of the political pundits are saying, well, OK. President Bush has become budget warrior with his veto pen. He's also become very, very aggressive on preserving the low tax rates. He calls himself a supply sider. I've heard him use that term before. Glad to hear it. But I was interested, all of a sudden...(unintelligible)...this year. Is Mr. Bush and are you trying to sharpen the Republican message for 2008? Trying to say, here's our contrast, veto excessive spending, keep tax rates low. Is this in large measure a political strategy?

Mr. CHENEY: No, I think it's--I think it is strategy driven my policy and our policy concerns. I think that's good politics. But I think if you look at it, in effect, what happened, of course, was for the first six years we were here, we had the Republican Congress. We negotiated on the top line on budgets every year. The Congress met our top lines, sometimes in the face of a veto threat, and so there was no opportunity or necessity to have vetoes as an important part of your strategy.

Tools:

PrintEmail Del.icio.us Digg It

Next Post

Previous PostBack to Main Page