|
Grex > Agora56 > #156: Protecting Your Tax Dollars--or Pissing Them Away? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
johnnie
|
|
Protecting Your Tax Dollars--or Pissing Them Away?
| 
Mar 7 03:50 UTC 2006 |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will soon make a formal
request to Congress for a line-item veto, an administration official
said on Sunday.
Congress passed legislation granting a line-item veto...,(but) the
Supreme Court struck down the law in 1998, ruling that Congress did not
have the authority under the Constitution to give the president that power.
The official said that Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, would
transmit to Congress a proposal with language aimed at withstanding a
Supreme Court challenge.
(Meanwhile...)
DALLAS - President Bush added a side trip to his Texas ranch to vote in
Tuesday's Republican primary after aides apparently forgot to order an
absentee ballot.
Bush hasn't missed a GOP contest since he started voting in Crawford in
March 2002. An administration official, speaking on the condition of
anonymity, indicated Saturday that White House staff had slipped up on
the paperwork for requesting a mail-in ballot this time.
Early Saturday, with the president at risk of missing the election -
including a nomination fight for the local congressional seat - the
White House announced he would fly to Crawford after a meeting with the
Russian foreign minister at the White House. He'll arrive at the polls
at the Crawford Fire Station before the 7 p.m. closing.
-------
Hmmm...Control spending, or line-item veto? 39-cent stamp, or a trip on
AirForceOne at $56,800-per-hour? Decisions, decisions...
|
| 100 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 1 of 100:
|
Mar 7 22:47 UTC 2006 |
congress can't give the president those powers, it would require amending the
constitutio, because it redefines and expandes the executive branch.
|
gull
|
|
response 2 of 100:
|
Mar 8 02:16 UTC 2006 |
This isn't anything new. A line-item veto is on every President's wish
list. Clinton got it and got to try to use it exactly once before it
was ruled unconstitutional. It used to sound like a good idea to me,
but I've decided I don't feel like shifting more power to the executive
branch is a good idea.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 3 of 100:
|
Mar 8 03:10 UTC 2006 |
I think a properly defined (read: limited) line-item veto is a very good idea.
For example, shouldn't the president be able to say "I like this transportation
bill but not this subsidy for pig farmers in North Dakota"? I think that he
should be able to remove provisions not actually related to the bill's purpose.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 4 of 100:
|
Mar 8 03:37 UTC 2006 |
That's a rather naive view. Just as likely, if not more, is that instead of
committee and party leaders handing out bribes, the power will simply shift
to the executive branch to buy legislative votes.
|
keesan
|
|
response 5 of 100:
|
Mar 8 03:39 UTC 2006 |
How great a majority has to pass a bill for a president not to be able to veto
it?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 6 of 100:
|
Mar 8 03:43 UTC 2006 |
It takes a 2/3 majority (of both houses) to override a veto.
|
keesan
|
|
response 7 of 100:
|
Mar 8 03:56 UTC 2006 |
I don't see why a president's vote should count the same as that of 1/3 of
both houses.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 8 of 100:
|
Mar 8 04:21 UTC 2006 |
According to CNN, Clinton used the line-item veto 82 times.
> I don't see why a president's vote should count the same as that of
1/3 > of both houses.
The joy of checks and balances.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 100:
|
Mar 8 06:09 UTC 2006 |
The president's proposal in this case is not to have a line-item veto, but
to return to the House particular items he doesn't like for the House to vote
on separately. I sort of like this idea, unless it is overdone (a president
in a conflict with the House could turn back everything in a budget and then
require the House to vote on every item in the budget separately). I would
like the House to vote on all the "earmarks" and "pork" provisions separately,
so they could take more specific responsibility for these items.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 10 of 100:
|
Mar 8 10:22 UTC 2006 |
#9: I like that idea too.
|
jep
|
|
response 11 of 100:
|
Mar 8 16:57 UTC 2006 |
The purpose of a line-item veto is to reverse the tendency of Congress
to include many different items in a single bill. If Congress used one
bill for each separate item, then no "line-item veto" would be
necessary, as the president could just veto bills which he didn't want
to sign.
Congress, though, uses omnibus bills as deal-making tools. Congressman
A says he'll vote "yes" if his amendment is included. His amendment,
of course, might have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill.
Instead, on a line-item veto, there will be sub-items which the
president could conceivably veto. And then, deal-making Congressmen
will include more amendments within particular "lines" so the president
can't veto those items.
A line-item veto will never accomplish anything.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 100:
|
Mar 8 17:00 UTC 2006 |
He isn't asking for a line-item veto.
|
jep
|
|
response 13 of 100:
|
Mar 8 17:03 UTC 2006 |
I don't think it will work, either. Congress requires the capability
for deal-making. I would expect that's crucial to get a majority of
435 people to compromise enough to agree on complex matters such as
budgets.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 14 of 100:
|
Mar 8 18:45 UTC 2006 |
I think that if Congress makes a deal that would be bad for the nation on a
bill that must pass (or the government would shut down), and the bill isn't
totally flawed, the president should be able to send the flawed parts back to
Congress to stand or fall on their own.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 15 of 100:
|
Mar 8 18:50 UTC 2006 |
Remember, too, that presidents want the line-item veto so they can
eliminate (funding for) programs and provisions they don't like.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 16 of 100:
|
Mar 8 19:03 UTC 2006 |
like that god damn communiss head start and wic!
|
kingjon
|
|
response 17 of 100:
|
Mar 8 19:04 UTC 2006 |
A line-item veto -- or at least the current proposal as I understand it --
would allow Congress to override it for those parts he returns. If it's just
"the president doesn't like it", Congress will. If it's "it would be very bad
for the country", but someone managed to sneak it onto the budget or a
hurricane relief bill, the President should be able to let the balance of the
bill pass. (I would support limiting this by saying that the bill had to have
at least as much funding (proportionally) after the Presidential review as
before, so he couldn't have a program passed and kill the tax increase attached
to pay for it.)
|
keesan
|
|
response 18 of 100:
|
Mar 8 20:21 UTC 2006 |
I don't know why a president should be expected to have any more expertise
than members of Congress, when presidents nowadays seem to be elected based
on how much hair they have and how well they can remember their lines.
|
crimson
|
|
response 19 of 100:
|
Mar 8 23:08 UTC 2006 |
The President should be expected to have *different* expertise. The Founders
wisely chose to give the President the power to return bills he found
unacceptable to Congress with his objections; this is called a "veto." The
proposal here is to allow him to do the same thing with parts of bills while
letting the rest take effect.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 20 of 100:
|
Mar 8 23:20 UTC 2006 |
In theory the president is the one whose job is to consider whether the
specific legislation benefits the nation as a whole, rather than benefiting
one particular state or congressional district. This means he would, in
theory, see a pork-laden bill as being a stupid waste even if the pork was
generously distributed throughout all of the states (or at least enough of
them to assure passage.)
Personally I have no problem with the idea that if Congress is going to
micromanage how some monies are allocated ("earmarks") that there be
some sort of accountability and some ability for members of Congress to
actually know what they're voting on, both of which are lacking today.
But I don't really see a line-item veto as being a good way to attain
this.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 100:
|
Mar 8 23:25 UTC 2006 |
Re #19: what I heard was that the president would return items for an "up or
down vote". I understood that to mean by a majority, not the veto requirement
of 2/3. Which is it?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 22 of 100:
|
Mar 8 23:47 UTC 2006 |
Re #20: Since this item started at least one person has consistently corrected
us calling it a "line-item veto." I'm not sure a "line-item veto" is the best
way either.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 100:
|
Mar 9 02:37 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, I'm him or one of him/her. We still need to know whether the new
proposal from Bush is a *veto* or is it to return single items to the House
for a majority vote on just that item.
|
bru
|
|
response 24 of 100:
|
Mar 9 02:40 UTC 2006 |
I am sure it isn't, but ot os the only way to get around congress putting all
the various bills ...
|