Line Item Veto request for King George

[Chadman]

I notice in last night's speech that King George continued his power grab by again asking Congress to "work with him" by passing the line item veto to allow him to get rid of anything he doesn't like in legislation.

Maybe with the recent shift of power of the Supreme Court, he can push to have the '98 ruling of the Court tossed out saying Congress does not have the power or latitude to enact this power.

I am all for taking measures to reducing pork and special interests from the process. But to simply give a President the ability to mark off anything from a bill he doesn't like when his party is in power is not in the best interest of our country. Of course, the Supreme Court felt this way, but of course, that's not good enough for this President.

 

[kosar]

I don't think it's such a bad idea. It's beyond ridiculous how shit like funding for indoor rainforests in Iowa gets buried in some piece of regular, important legislation that would never be vetoed.

 

[djv]

Kosar can't they nail those stupid projects with what they call ear marking. Bill does not pass with out those being dropped. As for line item veto. Many times I thought that was a good idea. But I do worry when in wrong hands what could happen. When one party already has all control not sure why they can't be wiser.

 

[Chadman]

I think there needs to be a better plan in place to prohibit these special projects from being tagged on to another piece of legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the other one. Let's get that fixed before we allow someone like Bush to wield a Sharpie. Or, any President, for that matter.

 

[dawgball]

I agree with kosar here. i would also like to have a better system, but when is that coming?

Even if he had power of veto, isn't the last stop Congress? Excuse my ignorance if this is incorrect.

 

[dr. freeze]

its natural for a leftist to be against a line item veto

other than military spending, i have never met a leftist turn down a government program

 

[djv]

Doc who's been in power last 5 years and ran us into the deep hole were in. Liberals my ass.

 

[smurphy]

Problem is, if Bush had that power there's no way he'd cut any fat from his friends' pork. Obviously he'd only cut the fat from blue states. All this would do is give him more power - power that he doesn't need.

A real solution would be a bi-partisan group of about 4 people to slash away.

 

[Nosigar]

Doc who's been in power last 5 years and ran us into the deep hole were in. Liberals my ass.

Pretty much liberals. Republican liberals, except for the tax cut.

And you're complaining?

 

[Master Capper]

It would be brutal to allow Bush and Cheney to have that power since they have proven time and time again to help out financially their backers!

 

[Chadman]

its natural for a leftist to be against a line item veto

other than military spending, i have never met a leftist turn down a government program

There probably is a little truth to this, although my concern deals more with this administration and what they would use this for. I don't think one person should be able to wield ultimate power in legislation, especially if their party has a majority. It just tilts our demcracy too far in one direction - no matter which direction it is. Conservatism or Liberalism.

To criticize liberals and government spending - while supporting this administration, is laughable, however.

I guess the current conservative regime is for cutting government spending, as long as it doesn't cut their lobbyists interests, personal financial gains, or major investors. And I meant those financially invested in this administration.

I think we need to really look closely at how we can stop these tag-ons for personal interests, and fix the problem at it's root. Not leave one person in charge of a pen to determine legislation.

 

[dr. freeze]

who said this administration was conservative?

why are you leftists confused unable to differentiate conservatives from a member of a particular party?

why is it incomprehensible to leftists for a conservative to support the "less left" of two choices?

 

[smurphy]

OK Freeze, so Bush is a leftist. Why is he for a line item veto then? You just said leftists are against it.

 

[Chadman]

Well, this administration certainly campaigned, both before the election and to this very day, under the banner of conservatism. He preaches his allegiance to conservatism in every speech he makes. He preaches fiscal responsibility and advocates in practice just the opposite. Conservatives sing his praises and say he is a man of conviction to their cause. Most say he says something, follows through with it.

To that, I say Bush-crap-ola. Bush pleads to be considered a conservative, and most conservatives claim him as such, and brag about it.

 

[dr. freeze]

Bush makes some decisions conservatively and others way out in left field. Congress, no matter what the party, loads bills with endless spending projects. This habit is created out of pandering to voters. The only reasonable solution on the table is a line item veto. That way, Tom DeLay, Tom Daschle, and their ilk can't buy themselves elections.

If you have a better solution, lets hear it.

 

[smurphy]

My better solution is a BI-PARTISAN group of 4 people to slash and burn the pork. They should be given a required amount - let's say 50% to start with. Let 'em go crazy. They will have to negotiate and argue but eventually cut half the pork. At least we can make sure both sides are represented.

If Bush has sole authority, then the cutting will obviously be incredibly unbalanced. I'm sure he wouldn't do damn thing about the $250 million Alaskan bridge to nowhere, for example.

 

[dr. freeze]

well, that is why we elect a President

a bi-partisan group is not an elected group

veto authority lies with the President

since we have a problem that lies inherent in "add-ons" or "tack-ons" to bills, we need a solution for the guy who vetoes to tack off those wasteless things

a bipartisan group would amount to as much "dealmaking" as we already have with the same band of outlaws

 

[kosar]

If Bush has sole authority, then the cutting will obviously be incredibly unbalanced. I'm sure he wouldn't do damn thing about the $250 million Alaskan bridge to nowhere, for example.

I agree with Freeze. Look, as it is right now, those ridiculous pork projects buried in legitimate legislation renders the president faultless if he doesn't veto the entire bill because 90% of it is justified.

With a line item veto, he will be responsible for explaining why he left that nonsense on there and didn't exercise a line item veto.

If anything, a line item veto would make the president more accountable, not less.

 

[smurphy]

well, that is why we elect a President

a bi-partisan group is not an elected group

veto authority lies with the President

since we have a problem that lies inherent in "add-ons" or "tack-ons" to bills, we need a solution for the guy who vetoes to tack off those wasteless things

a bipartisan group would amount to as much "dealmaking" as we already have with the same band of outlaws

And Bush would not me making deals? That element is unavoidable. At least if the sides were evenly matched and they were forced to reach a number (like 50%) then we would be assured of equal representation and actual cuts. How could that be a bad thing?

If Clinton were the president, would you feel the same about this?

 

[smurphy]

I agree with Freeze. Look, as it is right now, those ridiculous pork projects buried in legitimate legislation renders the president faultless if he doesn't veto the entire bill because 90% of it is justified.

With a line item veto, he will be responsible for explaining why he left that nonsense on there and didn't exercise a line item veto.

If anything, a line item veto would make the president more accountable, not less.

Accountable to who? He's already accountable for the massive deficit, but nobody cares. I think he'd be running free only slashing items from the left and upholding all the waste from the red states.

....Then when there's eventually a dem prez, they will get revenge by doing the opposite.

And probably to offset all the savings from the pork being cut from the bad guys, I'm quite sure there will be even more wasted on the good side.

I like a required number to cut, with equal representation making the cuts.