Our Line-Item-Veto con artists in Congress!

Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 08:43 am
If you really want to zero in on a number of con artists in Congress, the following article is a wonderful source to identify these charlatans. Senate legislation aims to stop overspending


New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg flanked by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other Republican Senators today introduced "Stop Over Spending" Legislation. The SOS package is a series of budget reform measures designed to slow the growth of federal spending and cut entitlements.

Perhaps the most high profile provision in the SOS Act is a Presidential line item veto that would give the President the power to pare back irresponsible spending and shine a spotlight on egregious pork projects. Of course, this only works if the President actually uses the power...but let's assume he will.

So, Sen. Gregg, and Bill Frist would have the American People believe if ``line item veto`` power were available to the President, it would ``slow the growth of federal spending and cut entitlements.``

The truth is, if line item veto were available to the executive branch of government, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. But I`m getting a little ahead of myself, so, let us start from the beginning because understanding our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, expose those who are attempting to subjugate the legislative intent of our Constitution.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' [/i]No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and returning a bill so amended to the House in which it originated..

Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power as is now proposed under line item veto legislation.

Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:

''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''[/i]

The Convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail the innovative line-item veto proposal most assuredly would resurrect.

If the proponents of the line-item veto, such as Sen. Gregg, and Bill Frist want to control reckless spending and borrowing, and encourage Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, they ought to be promoting our Founding Father’s plan, and in particular, the founder`s method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to meet its expenses during the course of a fiscal year!

Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to meet its expenses, Congress was then intended to lay an apportioned tax among the states for the total sum of the deficit created. The deficiency created by Congress` borrowing is to be raised by apportioning the sum of the deficit among the states in such a manner that each state receives a bill to pay into the federal treasury a share of the total deficit based upon its number of votes in Congress___ representation with proportion obligation.

The Founders intended that those states paying the highest share into the common treasury, would likewise have a proportional vote in determining how their money would be spent! An idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread!

Few people realize the Founding Fathers provided a FAIR SHARE FORMULA in our Constitution to extinguish deficits created by Congress___ a constitutionally mandated fair share formula which our big spenders in Congress and the friends of a big socialist government will do almost anything to avoid!

Under the Founder`s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a ``United Nations`` [a money laundering operation] are to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the apportioned tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation___ it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!

For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward

Bottom line

We don`t need a line item veto power being exercise by the Executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the national Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want.

What we need is for Sen. Frist and Sen. Gregg to abide by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, especially with regard to extinguishing annual deficits created by Congress` reckless borrowing which has to date enslaved the future of our nation`s children to the tune of $50 Trillion.

What we need is for Sen. Frist and Sen. Gregg to enforce the apportioned tax among the states to extinguish annual deficits ___ a constitutional rule agreed upon which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their state Governor and Legislation who would be left with the responsibility of meeting their state`s obligation in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress.



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"[/i]___ Justice Story
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 489 • Replies: 3
No top replies

Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:46 pm
If we could only use this type of logic when it comes to other aspects of the Constitution. Like the right to privacy, abortion and affirmative action. None of these are in the Constitution but they now currently exist. So what is the difference between these and a line item veto?
0 Replies
john w k
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 06:08 pm
Baldimo wrote:
If we could only use this type of logic when it comes to other aspects of the Constitution. Like the right to privacy, abortion and affirmative action. None of these are in the Constitution but they now currently exist. So what is the difference between these and a line item veto?

You wont get any argument from me!

``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce___ The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.11[/i]

But I wonder where all the knee-jerk Republicans are, especially those who support line-item-veto power being granted to the President.

Why would one support the President having ``line-item-veto power``? How does it force fiscal accountability upon Congress?

Almost all states practice line-item veto now and are also swimming in horrific un-funded debt liabilities just as the federal government is. ``The National Association of State Budget Officers considers state debt in excess of $1,200 per capita to be unmanageable. Illinois is now at almost twice the "unmanageable" level, with over $2,000 in state debt per capita -- not including the $40 billion in unfunded pension obligations.``

Truth is, un-funded state employee pension funds are a ticking time bomb, even with line-item-veto powers being exercised!

In any event, I just saw the following:
Frist, Alexander Back Stop Over-Spending Act

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says:

It`s my belief that the new tools in S.O.S. are the most effective measures available for strengthening fiscal discipline and fixing our broken budget process.

What a con artist!

Is that so Senator Frist? ``The new tools in S.O.S. are the most effective measures available for strengthening fiscal discipline and fixing our broken budget process``?[/i]

It is interesting to note Senator Frist, there is nothing, NOTHING, in the proposed line-item-veto legislation which would get rid of any pork. But there is language in the proposed ``Stop Over Spending"[/i] [S.O.S.] Legislation, to change the annual budget to a two year cycle budget so the big sending Republican porkers in Congress will only have to listen to music about budget deficits every two years instead of every year.

The truth is Senator Frist, ``the most effective measure`` to cure Congress`reckless spending and borrowing is our founding fathers intended apportioned tax among the states intended to be used to extinguish federal deficits, and would make every member of Congress, including our Republican big spenders and borrowers, immediately accountable to their state Governor and Legislature who would be left with the responsibility of raising their state`s obligation in extinguishing an annual deficit created by Congress!

Accountability! The key is to make members of Congress accountable for the reckless spending and borrowing and the founding fathers idea does that! Perhaps that is why our con artist charlatan Republican leadership will do anything to avoid laying the apportioned tax to extinguish annual deficits created by Congress. Heck, why not ignore deficit spending? Our younger generation will be left with the tab.

You`re making things up Senator Frist, just like the Democrat leadership make things up



``To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.``[/i]___ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
0 Replies
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 08:06 pm
You have to know that the pork spending runs on both sides of the isle. If you look at states that had the worst issues it was California that was the most out of control at a whopping 40 billion in debt. That didn't happen because it was run by Republicans. While I like the idea of a line item veto it should be noted that it could be used as a tool of power. I think there are some who would use it for its intended purpose and others who will abuse it. Looking at Bush's record of vetoes I don't think it would be an issue. If you were to look at Clintons use of the veto well who knows what would happen.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
  1. Forums
  2. » Our Line-Item-Veto con artists in Congress!
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:56:04