Before 2001, only three presidents in American history have served a full term and not vetoed anything (Adams I, Jefferson, and Adams II). With the ink on his veto pen having gone dry, George W. Bush is not only prepared to join a pretty select group, he’s about to become the first president in 176 years not to exercise his veto power over the course of a four-year term.
There are, however, some reasons to believe Bush’s veto-less streak may come to an end.
In the final weeks before an election, when political parties usually try to display unity, the Republican-controlled Congress is butting heads with the Republican president.
Whether the issue is eligibility for overtime, travel to Cuba or the privatization of government workers, significant numbers of GOP lawmakers are parting company with their president.
It’s not that they’re being disloyal, say these Republican renegades. It’s just that their home-state political interests sometimes collide with what the national party wants.
These GOP lawmakers want Bush to win (they’re not Linc Chafee), but even more importantly, they want their own campaigns to succeed, too.
So, what kind of legislation may come across Bush’s desk that he’s inclined to dislike? There are a few things — and vetoing them would pose huge political risks.
The new overtime rule, which took effect Aug. 23, revamped the definition of which workers are entitled to overtime pay. Some workers, at their employers’ discretion, could be given compensatory time off for extra work. Although the administration contended that far more workers would become eligible for overtime pay than would lose it, organized labor said 6 million workers could lose overtime pay.
The House voted to block the administration from implementing the overtime rule when 22 Republicans joined forces with Democrats. A Senate panel has recommended that the Senate follow suit, even though the White House has threatened a veto.
Many Republicans who voted to block the overtime rule come from labor-heavy states.
Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania said he did not see his position as a vote against the president. “I voted with my constituents,” he said.
True, and he voted against his president’s wishes. Bush’s overtime changes are wildly unpopular with workers in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Lawmakers know it and they’re not prepared to put their own careers in jeopardy just to help Bush with this controversial initiative.
The other possibility deals with an equally unpopular change to U.S. policy towards Cuba.
Proponents of lifting the travel restrictions include many farm-state Republicans who see Cuba as offering new sales opportunities for agricultural products.
With 39 Republicans breaking ranks, the House approved an amendment to a spending bill that would allow Cubans living in the United States to travel to the island once a year and stay as long as they wanted. That would overturn the administration restriction that limited Cuban Americans to a single 14-day visit every three years.
Would Bush actually use his veto power on these? It’d be fascinating to see the struggle. With a month until the election, watching the president veto a bi-partisan move to secure the old overtime rules would embolden pro-labor voters in key electoral states. If Bush vetoed changes to his harsh new policy towards Cuba, already-angry Cuban-American voters in South Florida would get an important reminder of Bush’s controversial position.
On the other hand, seeing Bush cave to Congress on these measures would show the president in a weak light. His “get tough” image doesn’t fit well with rolling over to congressional demands, especially when the acquiescence would be blatant policy reversals (aka, flip-flops).
Ultimately, Congress will probably give in and remove the necessary provisions (at around midnight on a Friday). Still, it’ll be an interesting dynamic to watch over the next couple of weeks.