I suppose that when you grow up never having to worry about the next paycheck, about paying the rent or the bills, the fact that debt will come due is an alien concept.

Someone should ask the President who the daddy is that will bail the United States out of this mess. A whole new meaning to "who's your daddy?"

The abusive fee system is working so well here in Virginia that Bush should consider enacted the same thing on a national level.  Make the "bad" people pay for bridge repairs - who could be against that?

Make the abuser fees national, and then see how many petition signatures that gets! :)

...when he says that Congress should examine their spending priorities. Doling out billions for special pork projects rather than taking care of our nation's crumbling infrastructure needs is shameless, no matter which party is in control of Congress. But Bush also signed those bills containing the earmarks, so he is talking out of both sides of his mouth (no surprise). The solution is there already. Congress just has to have the gumption to reign in their ravenous appetites for pork and instead attack the "un-sexy" issue of infrastructure before levying an additional tax on gasoline.

I mean, he's happy to veto stem cell bills, or threaten vetoes on FISA bills that don't give Alberto Gonzales and him everything their little (emphasis on little) hearts desire.  But spending bills?  This is the most profligate, out-of-control, wild spending Administration ever.  Spend and spend and spend and....go shopping, everyone!

P.S.  Just don't spend on bridges, education, health care, the environment, New Orleans, etc., etc.  Spend it all on Iraq, corporate welfare, etc.

I've never quite understood this whole all-pork-is-evil mantra that's gaining in popularity.  A lot of the earmarks, especially those from practically any Alaska congressperson, are utterly outrageous, I agree, but do these people actually not want the federal government giving any money to local governments?  Do they realize that that's how reps get re-elected, by bringing home the proverbial bacon?

I equate it to the war on lobbying that we've been seeing.  Bribing congress is one thing, but lobbying is an extension of our constitutional right to petition government.

Elimination of earmarks and pork does not mean the elimination of federal funding to localities.  Without earmarks federal appropriations are allocated based on need, that's what the people at the applicable federal department do.  Earmarks circumvent that process and thereby distorting an otherwise merit based system.  Now do federal agencies always come up with the best allocations?  Of course not, but that is what Inspector Generals, the GAO, and Congressional oversight are all about.  And pork, of course, is unnecessary spending so it wastes tax dollars.

I would be hesitant to say that reps get re-elected because of it.  I certainly don't vote for my representatives based on earmarks or pork spending.  And I'm not sure that other people do either.  I think most sensible people would be appalled if they knew their reps were doing that especially if they knew that said earmarks denied funding to some other state or locality that had a greater need.  And why would you vote for someone who added pork to a bill?  At a time when funds are tight and there are a lot more important funding priorities, how could you vote for someone who was just pissing funds away?

The war is the biggest wasteful program that we have in this country. It seems to benefit a very small group of American, military contractors. There will be no positive return on investment.

I can't take serious Bush on anything when his actions contradict his statements. He has zero credibility: you can't ask for restraint while you recklessly spend money on a never ending war.

The intent of the Bush's and the Republican's sudden  attacks on "pork" and on any legislation or Congressional oversight (see the latest Protect America Act which dispenses with oversight of domestic spying by Bush) is, simply, to denigrate and trivialize Congress, especially now that Congress under the Democrats is showing some signs of thinking it might be a co-equal branch of the government.

Remember the campaign against "activist judges" which has resulted in an almost complete cowing of the judicial branch by placing compliant judges throughout the system, judges who suddenly are interpreting the law solely for the objective of enhancing executive power? Now we are seeing the same sort of campaign against Congress. Remember the campaign against the "liberal media" which has resulted in the nearly total emasculating of the fourth estate, which now gives us stenographic repetition of Administration press releases under the guise of news?

Do not doubt this is all part of establishing the unitary executive as our new system of government.