0
   

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:10 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Maybe, but it wasn't so long ago that congress passed and a president signed into a law a line item veto. And at a time when the executive and congress were of opposing parties, no less. If there was enough support in congress for giving the president the authority to limit their spending, how could we not again get enough support in congress for them to limit it themselves. It really only takes one good veto.


Reagan vetoed a lot of stuff. The Democrats used Bush 41's 38 vetoes (or was it 58? Can't remember) as one of the talking point in their successful campaign to defeat his re-election. Neither seemed to have any effect on pork barrel spending.

Clinton used the veto pen sparingly and I can't remember him ever using it on a fiscal matter but rather I seem to recall it was always on social issues (abortion, etc.) Bush 43 has only vetoed one bill during his presidency.

Would it make any difference now if Clinton or Bush had vetoed more stuff? I honestly doubt it, but I can't say we haven't changed over the last 14 years.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:12 pm
How many of those vetoes were specifically for pork?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:14 pm
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?

Shoudn't this question have an empirical answer? Some states have the line item veto, some don't. I'm sure someone has compared records to see how effective line item vetos are.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:18 pm
Quote:
So I recommend a constitutional amendment that would grant the president the power to separate supplementary provisions from any law and return such provisions to the Congress for independent up or down majority votes.


You might as well recommend that day become night and night become day. Hell we can't get congress to stop earmarking legislation by what act of God can we get them to propose a constitutional amendment to effectively do the same.
In any event that would be like using a cannon to kill a fly.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:19 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
How many of those vetoes were specifically for pork?


In the case of Reagan and Bush 41, I think most were targeted at various funding and spending bills. Both, of course, were stuck with 100% Democrat control of Congress except for I think two years when there was a GOP majority in the Senate during the Reagan adminsitration.

Thomas offers a very good suggestion though. How is the line item veto working out in states that have that?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:01 pm
Thomas wrote:
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?

Shoudn't this question have an empirical answer? Some states have the line item veto, some don't. I'm sure someone has compared records to see how effective line item vetos are.


That would certainly be an interesting comparison. However, I'm a little more interested in examples of why the existing veto wouldn't work. From what I gather, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to be an issue of time and politics.

If we're saying that a line item veto would still send the whole bill back to the congress, but with certain items rejected, well, that sounds to me exactly like the existing veto since the president is required to explain in writing his objections to a bill when he vetoes.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:22 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Thomas wrote:
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?

Shoudn't this question have an empirical answer? Some states have the line item veto, some don't. I'm sure someone has compared records to see how effective line item vetos are.


That would certainly be an interesting comparison. However, I'm a little more interested in examples of why the existing veto wouldn't work. From what I gather, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to be an issue of time and politics.

If we're saying that a line item veto would still send the whole bill back to the congress, but with certain items rejected, well, that sounds to me exactly like the existing veto since the president is required to explain in writing his objections to a bill when he vetoes.


With a line item veto, the parts of the bill that the president doesn't veto go forward as Congress presented it. It is only the 'line item' that goes back for Congress to resubmit if they wish, but this time they do need the requisite super majority to override the President's veto. If it is something they feel very strongly about, they can certainly do that though.

Take for instance there is a bill to authorize a new contract for the military or a bill that provides a necessary measure of national security, both of which could have serious financial or material repercussions if not passed. Every member of Congress supports the bill knowing full well the President cannot veto it without jeopardizing national security or without incurring substantial additional costs, etc. Knowing that, they load it down with a lot of earmark items to please the folks back home in advance of the upcoming elections.

This is when a line item veto would be a most valuable tool for the President to have.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:25 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
If we're saying that a line item veto would still send the whole bill back to the congress, but with certain items rejected, well, that sounds to me exactly like the existing veto since the president is required to explain in writing his objections to a bill when he vetoes.

I believe the difference is in what happens while Congress reconsiders the bill. At present, the consequence of a veto is the old law remains in force in this case -- unless there is no old law, in which case there is no law at all . By contrast, the consequence of a line item veto is that the new bill becomes law, minus the vetoed lines. That greatly reduces Congress's power to write mammoth bills that package controversial special interest legislation with consensus national interest legislation. I'm sure the line item veto would be a much more powerful tool than what the president now has.

I'm not sure, though, what bad things a president might do with a line item veto. I haven't thought the issue through yet.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:26 pm
If I could be convinced of a constitutional way to do this, and if studies showed that the line item veto reduced waste and was not abused, then I could support it.

Thomas, I'm looking into studies on states with line the line item veto now.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:53 pm
As a sidebar, I have absolutely no idea whether there is anything to this, but if there is--it's being floated in e-mails and showing up on other message boards--it could definitely have an impact on any 2008 Presidential ambitions John Kerry might have:
http://www.vvlf.org/default.php?page_id=77
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:54 pm
au1929 wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
]So I recommend a constitutional amendment that would grant the president the power to separate supplementary provisions from any law and return such provisions to the Congress for independent up or down majority votes.


You might as well recommend that day become night and night become day. Hell we can't get congress to stop earmarking legislation by what act of God can we get them to propose a constitutional amendment to effectively do the same.
In any event that would be like using a cannon to kill a fly.


Isn't a constitutional amendment to grant the president the power to line item veto at least as difficult to get Congress to pass as what I proposed?

I think it is.

Isn't a constitutional amendment to grant the president the power to line item veto at least as big a "cannon" as what I proposed to kill the same sized "fly?"

I think it is.

Some claim we don't need a constitutional amendment to grant the president the power to line item veto. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. But suppose next time the Supreme Court changes its opinion.
We still have to get Congress to vote for it, albeit a majority vote rather than a 2/3rds vote.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:59 pm
ican711nm wrote:
au1929 wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
]So I recommend a constitutional amendment that would grant the president the power to separate supplementary provisions from any law and return such provisions to the Congress for independent up or down majority votes.


You might as well recommend that day become night and night become day. Hell we can't get congress to stop earmarking legislation by what act of God can we get them to propose a constitutional amendment to effectively do the same.
In any event that would be like using a cannon to kill a fly.


Isn't a constitutional amendment to grant the president the power to line item veto at least as difficult to get Congress to pass as what I proposed?

I think it is.

Isn't a constitutional amendment to grant the president the power to line item veto at least as big a "cannon" as what I proposed to kill the same sized "fly?"

I think it is.

Some claim we don't need a constitutional amendment to grant the president the power to line item veto. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. But suppose next time the Supreme Court changes its opinion.
We still have to get Congress to vote for it, albeit a majority vote rather than a 2/3rds vote.


Ooooo Ican, I missed your post on a measure to let the President separate out unrelated components of a bill and insist they be voted on separately. What a nifty idea. This way Congress wouldn't necessarily need a super majority to get something back to the President, but they would definitely have to go on the record as to whether they voted for it or not and the President would be able to be very explicit about what he was signing and/or vetoing. I like that idea a lot.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 06:45 am
Damn,I guess I opened a can of worms when I started this discussion.

No matter how it gets configured,the way Ican has escribed it or the way I have described it,giving the President the line item veto would go a long way towards restoring some fiscal sanity.

If the President could veto those parts of a bill that are pork or have nothing to do with the original bill,then congress would have no real choice.

They would have to override the veto to get their pork approved and into law.

Of course,doing that would be close to political suicide.
The voters that pay attention would raise hell if they saw what pork was being included into bills,and how the congress was throwing money away.

But,thats just my opinion.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 06:57 am
mysteryman

Quote:
Of course,doing that would be close to political suicide.
The voters that pay attention would raise hell if they saw what pork was being included into bills,and how the congress was throwing money away.

The use of earmarks and pork is and has been an open secret for many years. It has not hurt anyone politically. In fact for those who bring home the bacon it has been a political plus. One must remember congress people are elected by those they serve, not the general public. .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 06:58 am
So, what I'm reading, if I understand it correctly, is that we the people need a change in the constitution to protect us from the representatives that we the people elect to represent us in congress. odd innit?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 07:02 am
dyslexia wrote:
So, what I'm reading, if I understand it correctly, is that we the people need a change in the constitution to protect us from the representatives that we the people elect to represent us in congress. odd innit?


Sadly, those we elect being politicians are more often interested in serving themselves and lining their pockets.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 07:04 am
au1929 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
So, what I'm reading, if I understand it correctly, is that we the people need a change in the constitution to protect us from the representatives that we the people elect to represent us in congress. odd innit?


Sadly, those we elect being politicians are more often interested in serving themselves and lining their pockets.

Then maybe we need to look at ourselves (we the people)
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 07:23 am
dyslexia wrote:
au1929 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
So, what I'm reading, if I understand it correctly, is that we the people need a change in the constitution to protect us from the representatives that we the people elect to represent us in congress. odd innit?


Sadly, those we elect being politicians are more often interested in serving themselves and lining their pockets.

Then maybe we need to look at ourselves (we the people)


Looking at ourselves really isnt the problem.

REmember,when the dems controlled both houses of congress for so long,they had serious ethical and legal problems with their own members.

The house bank scandal
The house post office scandal
Dan Rostenkowski

Just to name a few.

Personally,I think its just the fact that being so close to the power,and not really being accountable to anyone,except for an election,that makes those in DC so weird.

The electorate has a short memory,and its a matter of "what have you done for me lately" that gets many of the people in DC re-elected.
If a congressperson can bring home enough money for his district,then the electors are likely to overlook his or her more serious failings.

Often in elections,a candidate will say something along the lines of "vote for me and I will see that you get $2.00 spent here for every $1.00 you pay in taxes".
And naturally,the voters will go for that,not thinking about the fact that it will mean more deficits,more pork,and more wasteful spending.

So,while I agree to a certain part that we need to look at ourselves,I still feel that giving the line item veto to the President will greatly help matters.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 08:08 am
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
au1929 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
So, what I'm reading, if I understand it correctly, is that we the people need a change in the constitution to protect us from the representatives that we the people elect to represent us in congress. odd innit?


Sadly, those we elect being politicians are more often interested in serving themselves and lining their pockets.

Then maybe we need to look at ourselves (we the people)


Looking at ourselves really isnt the problem.

REmember,when the dems controlled both houses of congress for so long,they had serious ethical and legal problems with their own members.

The house bank scandal
The house post office scandal
Dan Rostenkowski

Just to name a few.

Personally,I think its just the fact that being so close to the power,and not really being accountable to anyone,except for an election,that makes those in DC so weird.

The electorate has a short memory,and its a matter of "what have you done for me lately" that gets many of the people in DC re-elected.
If a congressperson can bring home enough money for his district,then the electors are likely to overlook his or her more serious failings.

Often in elections,a candidate will say something along the lines of "vote for me and I will see that you get $2.00 spent here for every $1.00 you pay in taxes".
And naturally,the voters will go for that,not thinking about the fact that it will mean more deficits,more pork,and more wasteful spending.

So,while I agree to a certain part that we need to look at ourselves,I still feel that giving the line item veto to the President will greatly help matters.


A Constitutional amendment might not even be necessary if
a) A different Supreme Court interpreted it differently than the last time a Line Item Veto was visited - the vote was not unanimous then - or

b) Congress passed a law giving the President authority to do what Ican suggested" let the President separate unrelated components of a bill and send some of it back to Congress for a straight up or down vote (not a super majority) while signing through the remainder.

But the problem is indeed us. In poll after poll, Congress gets low marks and a majority of the people believe it is self serving, inefficient, ineffective, and on the wrong track - EXCEPT - most think their OWN elected Congressman or Senator is okay. It's everybody else who is the problem. So they too often keep damning the others while re-electing their own.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 08:47 am
Going back to a recent discussion, here's what I think Reagan conservatives know will be the case if the Democrats do take both houses of Congress next month:

October 21, 2006
Pay-Go and Polls: What a Predicament
By Lawrence Kudlow

Most supply-siders believe that if the Democrats manage to take the House and Senate two-and-a-half weeks from now, President Bush's investor tax cuts will be safe. First, the tax cuts already have been extended to 2010. Second, the president will surely veto any tax-hike legislation that a new Democratic Congress might pass. (Think Grover Cleveland, the greatest presidential veto-er in American history.)

Maybe so, but the political story will be more complicated, especially if a Democratic Congress passes new "pay-as-you-go" rules. This could put the tax cuts in jeopardy as early as next year.

There are essentially two kinds of pay-go. One is a spending limitation that was used by the Gingrich Congress to balance the budget in the 1990s. This would be good. The other is a revenue pay-go, which is not so good. In this scenario, if the Democrats cobbled together a big-bang deficit-reduction package, large tax hikes would be put in place to meet the new deficit targets. Since Congress scores the investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains as static revenue losses -- even though the evidence shows they pay for themselves -- these tax cuts would be subject to repeal or rollback.

Should revenue pay-go materialize, President Bush might be confronted with a Hobbesian choice of vetoing a so-called $500 billion deficit-reduction package that would increase the cap-gain, dividend and top-income-bracket tax rates.

Truth be told, the Democratic Party desperately wants to return the income-tax rate to President Clinton's 39.6 percent. It's an obsession that's lodged in the Democratic DNA, a class-warfare mentality that seeks to penalize the rich and soak American success. In practice, it would be a Soviet-style income-leveling exercise in the name of making the non-rich feel better.

And it's nonsense.

President George W. Bush's tax cuts have done an amazing job of reigniting the U.S. economy. The 2003 tax cuts rallied the stock market, generated 6.5 million new jobs and produced soaring revenues that have, in turn, slashed the deficit.

But all this is in peril if the new pay-go rules go through.

So let me warn my conservative friends and fellow members of the American investor class: A Democratic sweep come Nov. 7 will put Bush's hugely successful tax cuts on the chopping block.

It's a sobering thought, particularly in light of sinking Republican fortunes.

On Tradesports, the online betting parlor, the House GOP 2006 contract has dropped to a new low of 32 percent. In late September, prior to the Mark Foley scandal, it had been 57 percent. Bettors, it seems, are giving up on the contract.

On the Senate side, the contract is still a 70 percent bet the Republicans will hold the upper chamber. This points to a congressional split, meaning Washington will "do no harm" on pro-growth measures, especially tax policy. But it is still possible that a phony pay-go revenue deal could surface with a coalition of House Democrats, liberal Republican Senators, and Senate Democrats.

Just as troubling is an anti-growth surge toward protectionist trade activity. The Democrats are against free trade almost uniformly, with 30 percent to 40 percent of Republicans considered unreliable on the subject. A Wall Street Journal story this week reveals a strong push for textile protectionism against China, Vietnam, Africa, Haiti and South America. The supply-side growth model stresses a steady dollar, low tax rates and free trade to promote growth. Hence, should protectionist legislation trudge forth, it would be an anti-growth lose-lose situation for the United States and its trading partners.

All this said, the roaring stock market remains very much in favor of a divided Congress. Republican polls are going down, and stocks are going up? Is this the Pelosi bull market? Perhaps so.

But if both chambers shift Democrat, taxes, trade and spending may all go the wrong way. In The New York Times this week, Robert Pear details Democratic plans to control drug prices and attack health insurers and pharmaceutical companies. It's Hillarycare all over again -- a takeover of 15 percent of our economy.

President Bush's economic approval rating has risen 5 points to 44 percent in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Republicans should follow the president's lead and flog away on the economy, the benefits of lower tax rates and dropping gas prices. They also should loudly trumpet the splendid stock market rally. Indeed, across the next 18 days, this is the GOP's best chance to generate an enthusiastic vote turnout from the investor class.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen shows that entrepreneurs (49 percent) and investors (46 percent) are the two groups most appreciative of the job the president is doing. Message to the GOP: Talk up the low-tax, Goldilocks stock market economy, and get these folks to the polls.

It's your last chance boys and girls.
SOURCE
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 02:07:10