Or resident Obama Administration @$$-kicker.

What a bunch of crybabies. This was the "smart" people we deemed to elect? Why is it that everyone who was pretty smart prior to going into Obama's Administration are now suddenly dumb and petty?

And, having been one of the people who helped draft the Administration's public statements surrounding the veto, I'd respectfully disagree that the veto was "primarily about taxes." Taken strictly, only the President can rank the reasons why he vetoed something. The rest of us can merely observe the spectrum of reasons listed and guess about how he ranked them. From my chair advising him at the time, spending was as important as the tax increases. (In addition, the article you referenced was at an earlier stage of the legislative process.)

The moment Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid rammed Hogzilla through Congress on party line votes sight-unseen, this economy became the sole property of The One, lock, stock, and red ink barrel.  And the same thing goes for the……

First, Democrats won majorities in both houses in 2006.

Second, the veto was overridden by Congress, so it had no effect on spending. Orszag was right to ignore it.

Third, if you are trying to suggest that Bush was trying to be fiscally responsible, it's important to remember that the Bush veto was primarily about taxes. It's like Bush's threat to veto S. 1634. Bush supported money for our troops; the only reason he opposed S. 1634 is that it was funded by taxes and Bush wanted to increase the deficit instead.