The Blue State

Bush to veto Homeland Security bill that would increase border protection

By a 268 to 150 vote, not enough to override a likely veto, the Democratic-led House of Representatives passed a $37.4 billion Homeland Security budget bill aimed at strengthening national defense.  The White House is upset because the bill exceeds Bush's request by $2.1 billion.  He is planning to veto it.

So what will Bush be vetoing?  Here is what the bill contains:

• Funds the hiring of 3,000 additional border agents.
• Ignores the Bush request to cut funds for first responders.
• Doubles the amount of air cargo that is screened.
• Doubles the amount of grants given to local communities for port security and mass transit.
• Increases in medical funds for veterans.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer cannot quite understand why Bush could veto the bill with a straight face:

"We are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq," said House Majorityleader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Given our continuing homeland securityvulnerabilities, we can surely find $2 billion to keep the Americanpeople safer at home."

Maybe Bush's veto promise came as a result of the unified pressure this week from conservative activists and Republican lawmakers, who asked for the White House to curb spending by vetoing more bills.  Now it appears the White House will do just that.

By analogy, if you believe we went to war just for the sake of going to war, then this is an example of vetoing bill just for the sake of vetoing one.

Video: Political group highlights the lack of GOP leadership on port security

During a commercial break from the CNN Sunday talk-show "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer", I noticed that the political action committee called "Americans United for Change" is already unveiling their new television spot on port security.  In the 30-second spot, they hold "the President and his backers in Congress" accountable for abandoning port security in this post-9/11 era:

Click to watch clip >>> (Windows Media Player)

MIKE MITRE (Director of Port Security, Longshoremen): "After 9/11, I thought President Bush and his backers in Congress would get serious about security.  But four years later, terrorists can still put a dirty bomb in one of these (containers), and only one in twenty will be inspected."

The "one in twenty" number is actually a generous one.  I have seen statistics from other sources that show a much less percentage of containers are usually inspected.

(Note: I am neither a member of "Americans United for Change", nor was I asked by them to publicize their media campaign on this site.  I do, however, agree with their efforts to make our country more secure, especially due to the fact that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will pose a huge threat to progress in the 21st century.)