I hope that this is able to be pushed through. Any thoughts? Will it make it?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060306/pl_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

This sure would be a good thing.

Except its not going to happen in this Congress.

I don't like the Line Item Veto. If the regular veto was good enough for George Washington and Grover Cleveland, it's good enough for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, I think.

 

The President, any President, should just be man enough to veto an entire bill if he's opposed to something in it.

 

That said, I don't think it'll be a bad thing for a Line Item Veto as Bush describes it, but that I think it's more dramatic and, frankly, better, to veto an entire bill or principal.

 

Grover Cleveland was the man.

with the constant amendments being added to a bill, I think this is a good thing. Only in America would we tie drilling for oil in Alaska to a highway appropriations bill.

 

It's crazy and I'm not taking sides here. But if a Senator voted down a bill that was to Increase Funding for Schools with an amendment to make oil-companies tax exempt or something, he'd be blasted for "not surporting schools" while his main intention was to keep oil companies from being tax exempt. Crazy example, but I think this is the other half of the problem. If our senators played nicely and each bill was separate without amendments, there'd be no reason for a line item veto in the first place.

So aside from saying "Let's make a version of this which is constitutional", did Bush give any indications as to how he'd craft one which wouldn't be overturned by the court?

with the constant amendments being added to a bill, I think this is a good thing. Only in America would we tie drilling for oil in Alaska to a highway appropriations bill.

 

THat is EXACTLY why I like it. THings have changed a lot int he last 200 years. Now odd things are tied into bills and the president can't veto the WHOLE bill because oppents will say "see! he's weak on defense" When actually is is against providing $100,000 to the state of main to study the maiting habits of ants. If he DOESNT veto the bill, money is spent on crap. Needless to say, unless the Congress gets it butt in gear, line item veto is a must.

No no no no no, please God, no. Not for either party, not ever.

 

Why is it we think that presidents are too partisan, but will somehow use a line item veto to strip out all pork, rather than just the other party's pork?

No no no no no, please God, no.  Not for either party, not ever.

 

Why is it we think that presidents are too partisan, but will somehow use a line item veto to strip out all pork, rather than just the other party's pork?

That would at least lead to some sort of a reduction in total pork, would it not?

That would at least lead to some sort of a reduction in total pork, would it not?

Not sure -- you could have the same total amount of pork, just more unilateral pork.

 

Plus, I don't like the idea that the executive branch can try to discipline the Congress so -- support us, we give you yr pork, o/w... Not the purpose of the presidency, for a very good reason.

Jackie,

 

I think you make an excellent pork, er point. It's not really the job of the President to piecemeal out pieces of legislation. The problem has more to do with the giant omnibus bills that make it easy to attach giant stupid projects to them.

 

Although porkbarrel spending is inevitable, I think if we elected officials who cared less about that and more about responsible government, we'd solve the problem faster.

Although porkbarrel spending is inevitable, I think if we elected officials who cared less about that and more about responsible government, we'd solve the problem faster.

But see, that's the real rub. If I decide I'm going to vote for a candidate who cares about responsible government, and I can convince my entire district to do so...then all I'm doing under the current situation is hurting my own district. Why? Because the pork that he doesn't bring home is going to wind up going to some other district who's representative isnt' as honest as mine. And in fact, the more districts who elect people just to be "responsible", the better it is for the districts that want billion dollar bridge projects, because they wind up having less competition for the dollars.

 

In other words, if I vote for a "responsible" government, I'm voting against my own self-interest, which is something that only works if the entire country does the same.

It doesn't hurt your district because someone else gets more. It only hurts your district if services you need aren't being provided to pay for a 'bridge to nowhere'.

It doesn't hurt your district because someone else gets more. It only hurts your district if services you need aren't being provided to pay for a 'bridge to nowhere'.

But that's exactly the point...if money doesn't flow back to my district, or state, or whatever...then I wind up having my tax dollars go to pay for some other district's pork project, while either money is being taken out of my district because my tax dollars are funding the million dollar bus stop or money is coming out of my district because I'm not getting whatever government funds coming back that I could.

 

If there is any pork at all by anyone, then it does hurt my district, because my district has to pay some portion of those funds. So the only way for my district to get a fair deal out of that is to do exactly the same thing...have my Congressperson bring back some money for us to use.

I do find the timing of this a little interesting. Bush has been president for over five years now. Why wait until now? Could it be that this is one element of the republican strategy to bolster its perception in light of the many ethics issues its leaders have found themselves in?

 

Furthermore, any line item bill would have an uproad battle in Congress... especially with a more conservative court (which bush appointed) that would follow the letter of the Constitution to the T. In light of the fact that the line item bill was shot down in 96, it would be probably more effective to amend the constitution.

 

To me, this looks like the republicans want the issue and not the bill. If they get the issue, they can campaign as reformers and claim that they are trying to stomp out corruption and pork in D.C. But they don't want they don't want the bill cause then they actually would cut their nose off despite their face.

I hope that this is able to be pushed through.  Any thoughts?  Will it make it?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060306/pl_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

if it is the version mentioned in this article, which seems like a line-item light - then show me in favor. I like the methodology suggested in the article. It forces simplification.

seems like a good idea to me