Jump to content

Line Item Veto


 Share

Recommended Posts

IMO the President needs to have it. We fiscal conservatives talk about cutting taxes to downside government, but every bill gets so loaded up with pork spending (from both sides) that it is impossible to cut spending, which is as important.

 

Which sides of the political aisle support this? Are both sides against this because everyone in the Congress and Senate wants to retain a disgusting amount of power? The very idea that this never gets through Congress makes me want to elect state governors more than our friends in DC who are living on our dime.

 

What are the arguments against the line-item veto? The President has too much power? I personally find it ridiculous that Congressmen and women have the power to add whatever they want to bill without it being reviewed by the rest of their peers. And beyond this, since they are bringing the money back to their districts, they are essentially buying the votes and (on the GOP members' part) abandoning fiscal conservatism (that they were often elected on) in general.

 

Can one of our lawyers explain to me more about the ruling in Clinton v. City of New York?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

IMO the President needs to have it. We fiscal conservatives talk about cutting taxes to downside government, but every bill gets so loaded up with pork spending (from both sides) that it is impossible to cut spending, which is as important.

 

Which sides of the political aisle support this? Are both sides against this because everyone in the Congress and Senate wants to retain a disgusting amount of power? The very idea that this never gets through Congress makes me want to elect state governors more than our friends in DC who are living on our dime.

 

What are the arguments against the line-item veto? The President has too much power? I personally find it ridiculous that Congressmen and women have the power to add whatever they want to bill without it being reviewed by the rest of their peers. And beyond this, since they are bringing the money back to their districts, they are essentially buying the votes and (on the GOP members' part) abandoning fiscal conservatism (that they were often elected on) in general.

 

Can one of our lawyers explain to me more about the ruling in Clinton v. City of New York?

 

Here's one person's take:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902304.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to feel strongly about it but heard George Will talk about it and he was right.

 

It would make the process EVEN MORE political. Instead of a Congressman/woman stepping up and stopping spending. They would spend even MORE.

 

And when it came election time, they would tell their constituents that they tried to get that new road built or that new project to create jobs done but that mean old President vetoed the bill.

 

Congress would pass even more spending so that the President would have to take more blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective. The most interesting part is that Will thinks the President could use it as a bargaining chip, and that Congressmen could put more blame on the President. Still though, is the status quo better than the President having to take the blame? People follow the actions of the President more than the Congressmen, and I'd love to see some responsibility for fiscal conservatism to be put on the Oval Office resident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to feel strongly about it but heard George Will talk about it and he was right.

 

It would make the process EVEN MORE political. Instead of a Congressman/woman stepping up and stopping spending. They would spend even MORE.

 

And when it came election time, they would tell their constituents that they tried to get that new road built or that new project to create jobs done but that mean old President vetoed the bill.

 

Congress would pass even more spending so that the President would have to take more blame.

I want to cut spending. Right now, the blame is on 530-something men and women in DC. Each one can blame their counterparts during election time.

 

With a line-item veto, all I would have to do is look at how much spending during the President's term, and see what HE/SHE did to reduce spending. If spending went up, he/she doesn't get my vote.

 

And, if we had a President who was responsible, then we could vote on Congress members based on what we stand for, rather than how much pork money they would bring back to our districts. Because right now, even if a candidate says they won't vote to increase spending, that means two things- 1) our taxes are going to extra districts and 2) total spending hasn't changed, but we see no money.

 

Maybe I am an idealist, but I think that the line-item veto would put even more of the blame on one man, rather than 530-something people who can point fingers at each other. And the American public can more appropriately respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against the line item veto. It's a way to surgically dismantle a bill.

 

I'd rather see something that prevents riders to bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.

I'd be even more happy with that. Is that practical? Has it ever been presented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this hurt the "checks and balances" system? Would this mean that the President can then dice up legislation he wants without any check from the Congress? The President can already check the Congress with the Veto, does he/she need more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this hurt the "checks and balances" system? Would this mean that the President can then dice up legislation he wants without any check from the Congress? The President can already check the Congress with the Veto, does he/she need more?

Maybe what we need is a President who uses his veto stamp more than his pen. If a bill comes to him with extra crap, he stamps it and sends it back. Perhaps Congress would eventually get the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe what we need is a President who uses his veto stamp more than his pen. If a bill comes to him with extra crap, he stamps it and sends it back. Perhaps Congress would eventually get the message.

 

In some ways, we had that. Didn't Bush break Andrew Jackson's record for most vetoes in an 8 year term?

 

Then again HHS, maybe the record ought to be doubled and that would send the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe what we need is a President who uses his veto stamp more than his pen. If a bill comes to him with extra crap, he stamps it and sends it back. Perhaps Congress would eventually get the message.

 

Precisely. A little bit of leadership would be nice. Then again, I don't know that the American public would be able to comprehend what was happening.

 

In some ways, we had that. Didn't Bush break Andrew Jackson's record for most vetoes in an 8 year term?

 

Not sure about that one Hatz, Bush used his veto begrudgingly little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways, we had that. Didn't Bush break Andrew Jackson's record for most vetoes in an 8 year term?

 

Then again HHS, maybe the record ought to be doubled and that would send the message.

Just the opposite. You have to go back to Warren Harding to find a president who has less vetoes. Then you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln to find a two-term president who has less vetoes. Bush has 10 (counting pocket vetoes.) I think he only had 2 in his first term. FDR had 635 over his four terms, Truman had 250 over two terms. Grover Cleveland had 414, an average of 1 a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the opposite. You have to go back to Warren Harding to find a president who has less vetoes. Then you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln to find a two-term president who has less vetoes. Bush has 10 (counting pocket vetoes.) I think he only had 2 in his first term. FDR had 635 over his four terms, Truman had 250 over two terms. Grover Cleveland had 414, an average of 1 a week.

 

Thanks. I thought I had heard or read the other. Once again, I am greatly mistaken. :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.