WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

A line item veto would provide another avenue for a president to exercise undue control over congress. He could and I have little doubt would veto all those items that favor his political enemies and allow to stand all those of his political allies.
If congress wasn't rife with political hacks and corrupt congress people they would do the right thing and do away with the pork laden system called earmarks.

This at face value would appear to be the realistic view. However, the President could not allow items that favor supporters and veto items that favor opponents without hurting the supporters? Why? Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness

Foxy

Quote:

This at face value would appear to be the realistic view. However, the President could not allow items that favor supporters and veto items that favor opponents without hurting the supporters? Why? Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness

.

Sorry, I disagree. Most politics are local and pork barrel politics only help an incumbent, if they can bring home the bacon.

Foxy
Regardless of which side of argument one is on. Would it even be a question if earmarks were discontinued.
Could funds for a bridge to nowhere be approved on it's own?

Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness.

Quote:

Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness.

Sheeeyit, Bush doesn't seem to give a goddamn about whether or not he is 'avoiding criticism.'

In their second term, they don't have to worry about re-election, so there would be effectively no break on the Prez' power, for years, to shut out the minority party completely. Not cool.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness.

Sheeeyit, Bush doesn't seem to give a goddamn about whether or not he is 'avoiding criticism.'

In their second term, they don't have to worry about re-election, so there would be effectively no break on the Prez' power, for years, to shut out the minority party completely. Not cool.

Cycloptichorn

We aren't talking about Bush. He's not running for re-election. We were talking about the pros and cons of giving the President....that's ANY President....the line item veto. And there are reasonable points to be made on each side of that particular issue. The check on the power of the Presidency lies in the power of Congress to override ANY of the President's wishes including a veto.

But you're right. President Bush, unlike his predecessor, doesn't get up each morning and check the daily polls to see what his position should be that day. So, right or wrong, he says what he believes and he is very consistent and unwavering on those issues he believes in. Those who don't like the consistency condemn him. Those who favor an elected official saying what he means and meaning what he says rather admire that even when they disagree with him.

I'm still not convinced that the existing veto power isn't enough. Exactly why would it not be adequate to address the problem of pork?

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm still not convinced that the existing veto power isn't enough. Exactly why would it not be adequate to address the problem of pork?

The problem is that our honorable legislators stick all that pork into unrelated bills that really do need to be passed. So the only way the President can veto the pork is to veto the critical vital legislation that needs to be passed. And yes, our honorable legislators put the pork into the most critical bills to make it almost impossible for the President to veto the legislation without doing serious damage to other things.

I of course use 'honorable' sarcastically because I think it is thoroughly dishonorable and dishonest for them to do that. And this is why I would support a line item veto even on a limited basis so that the tax payer doesn't get saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars of stuff earmarked purely to buy votes.

Look America. I'm not going to sign this bill while it has all these earmarks on this. We need money for our troops and to keep the gov't running, but this is highway robbery and blackmail and I just won't be a part of it. If you love America, get on your goddamned phones and tell your Congressmen/women to stop loading pork onto our critical bills.

The problem is that our honorable legislators stick all that pork into unrelated bills that really do need to be passed. So the only way the President can veto the pork is to veto the critical vital legislation that needs to be passed.

Foxfyre wrote:

The problem is that our honorable legislators stick all that pork into unrelated bills that really do need to be passed. So the only way the President can veto the pork is to veto the critical vital legislation that needs to be passed.

Right. But the veto just sends it back to the house it originated in. It's not like they can't take the pork out and send it again.

I understand what you're saying, but I agree with cyclops. We need a president that will call their bluff. When congress has such low approval ratings to begin with, one would think they couldn't survive a battle over pork.

BTW, not to be a stickler, but according to the constitution a vetoed bill goes back to the house it originated in. Of course, it does still have to be passed by both houses, but the point I was making is that it goes back to congress and they have the opportunity to remove the pork and resubmit it.