How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

Democrats try to brand earmarks as good
Capitol Hill's top Democrats are making a full-throated effort to rebrand earmarks as good government, not a dirty word synonymous with pork-barrel hijinks.

With President Obama's vow to clamp down on earmarks putting pressure on lawmakers to change their ways, congressional leaders have set out to educate voters about why they think Congress should direct dollars to districts or states for specific pet projects.

"That there is something inherently evil, wicked or criminal or wrong with [earmarks], it's just not the case," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, noting that he earmarked millions of dollars in the pending omnibus spending bill for what he said were worthy projects in his home state.

Mr. Durbin said lawmakers' pet projects are listed in the bill and exposed to public scrutiny, and that members of Congress know how to best spend taxpayer dollars in their districts and states.

"Otherwise, what happens? We give the money to the agency downtown and they decide where to spend it," Mr. Durbin said on the Senate floor. "It isn't as if the money won't be spent. Oh, it will be spent. But it may not be spent as effectively or for projects that are as valuable."

The refrain has been the same from other top Democrats, whether from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada or House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. Besides touting the merits of earmarks, these Democrats balked at Mr. Obama's announcement last week of a plan to reel in pork-barrel spending.

Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Hoyer made clear that they thought it was out of Mr. Obama's constitutional jurisdiction.

But the "power of the purse" argument does not belong only to congressional Democrats.

When Republicans ran both chambers, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and his colleagues argued just as staunchly that they had both a constitutional right to direct spending and the knowledge of which projects in their districts and states are most worthy.

But earmarks "don't go to the most critical and most important projects across the country" because they bypass the committee process and don't compete for funds with other priorities, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Click to expand...

Simply put, if a project is "important", then it doesn't need to be hidden inside a mega-page omnibus document no human being can read.

If it's "important", first off, it needs to fit the limitations of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. 99.9999% of these earmarks do not.

But if it is "important", then it should be able to stand up to a floor vote on it's own merits, and not depend on riding annonymously through congress because the bill being passed is ostensibly for something that does meet Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Anyway, the President should have the power to axe congress (not "ask") in it's never ending desire to waste taxpayer dollars on things the Constitution doesn't permit and that the voters in other states will never benefit from.

Line item veto this stuff, and if any of it is worthwhile...let the whole congress override the veto on that item.

Ain't complicated, ain't difficult, and our new Messiah promised he'd eliminate earmarks....and getting that amendment passed is the only possible way he can do it.

Meh, the more I think about it, the less I like the line-item veto. I think it would just encourage partisanship and extremism. As it stands now, congressmen are occasionally willing to cross party lines to work out compromises on important issues. If a president had the ability to keep the parts of bills that he liked and veto the parts that he didn't like, then it would discourage members of the opposition party from ever working with him on anything.

No to the line item veto amendment, yes to an anti-mega page omnibus legislation amendment.

The thing about the line item veto is, would congress have the ability to override the LI-Vetos when they occur?

I say no.At first I thought how it would be a good that instead of turning away a bill the president could just mark off the **** he doesn't want and sign for the rest. However the key words of that is "he can mark off any **** he doesn't want and sign for the rest", that's a double edge sword. For example if they do a so-called immigration compromise,the president could just knock out any enforcement provisions,knock out any limits imposed and knock out any pay minimums for hiring foreign workers, but keep the amnesty,keep the tax payer funded immigration assistance,make it easier for employers to hire foreigners instead of Americans or vise versa.

Kandahar said:

Meh, the more I think about it, the less I like the line-item veto. I think it would just encourage partisanship and extremism.

Click to expand...

As opposed to today, where the unnecessary bailout bill is called "bi-partisan because only 3 republicans voted for it in both Houses, and where the minority political party has absolutely no influence on the committee or any hope of getting amendments passed.

Kandahar said:

As it stands now, congressmen are occasionally willing to cross party lines to work out compromises on important issues.

Click to expand...

In exchange for pork barrel projects that someone in some other state gets to pay for.

Kandahar said:

If a president had the ability to keep the parts of bills that he liked and veto the parts that he didn't like, then it would discourage members of the opposition party from ever working with him on anything.

Click to expand...

You mean it would restore the purpose of legislation, ie, staying inside the Constitution and focusing on the matters at hand?

Porkbarrel politics...it's how the government crashed the economy.

That's a good reason to be done with it, isn't it?

jamesrage said:

I say no.At first I thought how it would be a good that instead of turning away a bill the president could just mark off the **** he doesn't want and sign for the rest. However the key words of that is "he can mark off any **** he doesn't want and sign for the rest", that's a double edge sword. For example if they do a so-called immigration compromise,the president could just knock out any enforcement provisions,knock out any limits imposed and knock out any pay minimums for hiring foreign workers, but keep the amnesty,keep the tax payer funded immigration assistance,make it easier for employers to hire foreigners instead of Americans or vise versa.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd suppose the line item veto would be applicable only to appropriations and expenditures, not other matters. I guess I didn't make that clear.

It should only apply to spending provisions in a bill, to allow the execute the opportunity to hack out the pork.

If a bit of ham is in there that the public wants, under a line item veto amendment it could be voted on by the whole House and Senate and the veto overridden.

jamesrage said:

I say no.At first I thought how it would be a good that instead of turning away a bill the president could just mark off the **** he doesn't want and sign for the rest. However the key words of that is "he can mark off any **** he doesn't want and sign for the rest", that's a double edge sword. For example if they do a so-called immigration compromise,the president could just knock out any enforcement provisions,knock out any limits imposed and knock out any pay minimums for hiring foreign workers, but keep the amnesty,keep the tax payer funded immigration assistance,make it easier for employers to hire foreigners instead of Americans or vise versa.

Click to expand...

I don't know too much about LI-vetos so excuse my naivety in advance but:

Does this mean, on an extremely loose understanding of this, that the president could do something like this:

Anyone who doesn't have health care and makes under 50K a year qualifies for subsidized government health care.

could be changed to:

Anyone who doesn't have health qualifies for subsidized government health care program.

Or would the president have to remove like the whole statue out. He can't just knick pick out certain words, right? Also, I thought that the president could only take out things that have been added after Congress voted on it, like during a compromise between the two branches of congress?

Line item vetos and signing statments clearly violate the intention of the Founding Fathers and I would not support any official status for them, far less a constitutional ammendment. By picking and choosing what lines of a bill will be passed and attaching arbitrary qualifications to bills that Congress has passed is horrifically open to abuse and can completely change the intent of a law. I would like for Obama to take a stand against both practices, but I'm not holding my breath

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

As opposed to today, where the unnecessary bailout bill is called "bi-partisan because only 3 republicans voted for it in both Houses, and where the minority political party has absolutely no influence on the committee or any hope of getting amendments passed.

Click to expand...

Citing one example of a bill that was decided (mostly) on party lines does not change the fact that there are bills that ARE bipartisan.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

In exchange for pork barrel projects that someone in some other state gets to pay for.

Click to expand...

Sometimes. But sometimes there are genuine compromises involved too.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

You mean it would restore the purpose of legislation, ie, staying inside the Constitution and focusing on the matters at hand?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're mean. You're arguing in favor of an amendment to the Constitution on the grounds that we need to stay inside the Constitution?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Porkbarrel politics...it's how the government crashed the economy.

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Earmarks account for much less than 1% of federal spending.

ladilala said:

I don't know too much about LI-vetos so excuse my naivety in advance but:

Does this mean, on an extremely loose understanding of this, that the president could do something like this:

Anyone who doesn't have health care and makes under 50K a year qualifies for subsidized government health care.

could be changed to:

Anyone who doesn't have health qualifies for subsidized government health care program.

Or would the president have to remove like the whole statue out. He can't just knick pick out certain words, right? Also, I thought that the president could only take out things that have been added after Congress voted on it, like during a compromise between the two branches of congress?

Click to expand...

No.

A line item veto works like this:

Defense Appropriations Bill 2025:

Item 1) $25 gazillion for two new aerospace carrier spacecraft.
Item 2) $1 bazillion for general's party.

...

The president could veto Item 2 and leave Item 1 intact.

If the Congress seriously thinks the generals should have a party, they can vote to override that one veto, and here's the key....without changing the wording that's already passed both House and Senate.

The president can veto whole laws.

The president can't re-write a word in them.

This restores one of the checks the President has on the Congress, one they bypass by burying pork in essential, must-sign bills.

The override provision permits the Congress to retain it's ability to say "---- you, mack" to the President when he tries to get in the way of people's real business.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No.

A line item veto works like this:

Defense Appropriations Bill 2025:

Item 1) $25 gazillion for two new aerospace carrier spacecraft.
Item 2) $1 bazillion for general's party.

...
.

Click to expand...

Couldn't the president also say screw Item 1 and vote for Item 2?


I think I like the idea of the president trashing the whole bill and telling them to make another bill without all the damn pork, if he is serious about cutting pork then that is what he should do.No one is putting a gun to his head forcing him to sign a pork laden bill and as far as I know there is no law saying he must sign every bill that reaches his desk.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Well, I'd suppose the line item veto would be applicable only to appropriations and expenditures, not other matters. I guess I didn't make that clear.

Click to expand...

What about something like this?

Immigration reform bill

line item 1- 70 million border fence vetoed
line item 2- 100 million legal fees of illegals seeking legal status
line item 3- 50 million to make all government forms and ballots bi-lingual
line item 4- 80 million for more border agentsvetoed
line item 5- 300 million for ice operationsvetoed
line item 6- 150 million for hospital,utility and grocery bills of illegals

Kernel Sanders said:

Line item vetos and signing statments clearly violate the intention of the Founding Fathers and I would not support any official status for them, far less a constitutional ammendment. By picking and choosing what lines of a bill will be passed and attaching arbitrary qualifications to bills that Congress has passed is horrifically open to abuse and can completely change the intent of a law. I would like for Obama to take a stand against both practices, but I'm not holding my breath

Click to expand...

The President is required to veto items that violate the Constitution. Fat chance of that, I know, especially with a Democrat in office, but he's supposed to.

But what the hell is he supposed to do when Congress passes a bill that has to be signed, like a defense appropriations bill and there's items for fixing up the library in Jim Walsh's home town or putting in a new and importanly vital fishing boat ramp on some unheard of tributary to an unheard of tributary to the Chattanooga river in some Tennessee congressman's district?

Shut the whole bill down?

Is the American public supposed to expect that the Congress simply HAS TO HAVE unconstitutional spending to convince one another to support the bills they apparently lack the ability to demonstrate any merit for except as a vehicle to spend money in the other guy's district?

A line-item veto forces an end to the practice of log-rolling and pork.

jamesrage said:

What about something like this?

Immigration reform bill

line item 1- 70 million border fence vetoed
line item 2- 100 million legal fees of illegals seeking legal status
line item 3- 50 million to make all government forms and ballots bi-lingual
line item 4- 80 million for more border agentsvetoed
line item 5- 300 million for ice operationsvetoed
line item 6- 150 million for hospital,utility and grocery bills of illegals

Click to expand...

Welll.....that didn't happen.

What has happened is that needed legislation is jammed up until the pork fat outweighs all the congressmen voting for the bill.

That's the reall world.

Let's see....the Congress votes for a hundred gigabucks for national defense, and ten megabucks for the admiral's golf course in Annapolis....and the Prez vetos the ten megabucks as waste...

...Congress has a vote and can't over ride the veto. Good.

Congress appropriates valid funding for a needed fence, George Bush vetoed the fence...and the Americans in Congress restored funding by overriding the veto because the fence was necessary.

Where's the problem?

Forget the fact that presidential vetos can be overridden by the House and Senate?

Don't know where you're getting your scare scenarios from. Last time I checked, no one in either of the major socialist party wings, Republomarxists and Demostalins, are doing or saying anything that's going to stop the presidents' continued persistent surrender to the invading hordes from the land of the tortilla.

The real issue is that the budget is currently COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.

I certainly don't trust anyone as ignorant and foolish as Obama to veto anything that should be vetoed,...then again, Obama ain't gonna be president by the time any such amendment is ratified.

jamesrage said:

Couldn't the president also say screw Item 1 and vote for Item 2?

Click to expand...

Sure could.

Especially Obama.

So?

you could try looking at the real point.

Presidents don't get re-elected by being totally ignorant. Bush and Carter and Ford prove that.

jamesrage said:

I think I like the idea of the president trashing the whole bill and telling them to make another bill without all the damn pork, if he is serious about cutting pork then that is what he should do.No one is putting a gun to his head forcing him to sign a pork laden bill and as far as I know there is no law saying he must sign every bill that reaches his desk.

Click to expand...

don't know what planet you live on, but it's routine for military approrpiations bills, you know, the bills that, among other things, authorize the paychecks for those guys with the uniforms, to be decorated like Christmas trees with all sorts of completely unimaginable pork projects....because the President has to sign them. This is the real world, not the little fantasy lands the anarchist idealist children live in.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The President is required to veto items that violate the Constitution. Fat chance of that, I know, especially with a Democrat in office, but he's supposed to.

But what the hell is he supposed to do when Congress passes a bill that has to be signed, like a defense appropriations bill and there's items for fixing up the library in Jim Walsh's home town or putting in a new and importanly vital fishing boat ramp on some unheard of tributary to an unheard of tributary to the Chattanooga river in some Tennessee congressman's district?

Shut the whole bill down?

Click to expand...

Welcome to politics.

If the President signs the entire bill except for that fishing boat ramp, then he's just a made a new enemy. And if that defense appropriations bill passed by one vote, you can bet your ass that that Tennessee congressman will swing the other way next time around.

There are ways to reduce the number of expenditures without giving the president broad, sweeping power to pick which parts of bills he likes. Congress didn't vote for a defense appropriations bill without that boat ramp. If there's too much wasteful spending, the president can veto the entire thing.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Is the American public supposed to expect that the Congress simply HAS TO HAVE unconstitutional spending to convince one another to support the bills they apparently lack the ability to demonstrate any merit for except as a vehicle to spend money in the other guy's district?

A line-item veto forces an end to the practice of log-rolling and pork.

Click to expand...

It also forces an end to compromise, bipartisanship, and (laugh) a deliberative body solving our nation's problems together.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Welll.....that didn't happen.

What has happened is that needed legislation is jammed up until the pork fat outweighs all the congressmen voting for the bill.

That's the reall world.

Let's see....the Congress votes for a hundred gigabucks for national defense, and ten megabucks for the admiral's golf course in Annapolis....and the Prez vetos the ten megabucks as waste...

...Congress has a vote and can't over ride the veto. Good.

Congress appropriates valid funding for a needed fence, George Bush vetoed the fence...and the Americans in Congress restored funding by overriding the veto because the fence was necessary.

Where's the problem?

Forget the fact that presidential vetos can be overridden by the House and Senate?

Don't know where you're getting your scare scenarios from. Last time I checked, no one in either of the major socialist party wings, Republomarxists and Demostalins, are doing or saying anything that's going to stop the presidents' continued persistent surrender to the invading hordes from the land of the tortilla.

The real issue is that the budget is currently COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.

I certainly don't trust anyone as ignorant and foolish as Obama to veto anything that should be vetoed,...then again, Obama ain't gonna be president by the time any such amendment is ratified.

Click to expand...

The point is that there will no longer be any compromises, because no one can negotiate in good faith if the President has a line-item veto. If Congress is Republican-controlled and the White House is Democrat-controlled, then the parties will need to work together to pass legislation. So let's suppose that the Republicans in Congress give the Democrats something that they want in a bill, and the Democrats in Congress give the Republicans something that they want, so the bill passes. Then the Democratic President vetoes everything that the Republicans wanted and keeps the rest.

Bam, suddenly no one ever wants to compromise on anything ever again.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

don't know what planet you live on, but it's routine for military approrpiations bills, you know, the bills that, among other things, authorize the paychecks for those guys with the uniforms, to be decorated like Christmas trees with all sorts of completely unimaginable pork projects....because the President has to sign them. This is the real world, not the little fantasy lands the anarchist idealist children live in.

Click to expand...

The President does NOT have to sign them. He can veto them and tell Congress that there's too much pork, if he wants to. And people like yourself who care so much about it can put pressure on him to do just that.

Kandahar said:

Welcome to politics.

Click to expand...

Been here for a while.

Amazing naivete you new comers show.

Kandahar said:

If the President signs the entire bill except for that fishing boat ramp, then he's just a made a new enemy.

Click to expand...

Yes. Current experience, say the last sixty years, has shown that American liberties are best defended by Presidents who make the best golf buddies in the House and Senate, right?

I don't elect presidents to be liked by the a-holes in the House and Senate. Not his job.

His job is, among other things, to say "no" when the little boys in the House get rambunctious with my money.

But I can see your argument.

It's much better that the President just have his signature on a rubber stamp, like this last Bush did in his first term, than to say "no" to anyone, ever. After all, if he makes just one "enemy" by vetoing a single item that doesn't belong on the bill, just think of all the enemies he's going to make if he has to veto the whole bill. My, oh my, just think how he's going to be pestered by those bullies when he goes out to recess that day.

It's so sad, the lack of spine this nation exhibits unabashedly these days.

Kandahar said:

And if that defense appropriations bill passed by one vote, you can bet your ass that that Tennessee congressman will swing the other way next time around.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's so important, isn't it? I mean, when was the last time a defense appropriations bill wasn't passed?

Oh, that's right. They always get passed, for the same reason the president always signs them....because they're essential to the safety of the nation.

Let's see....did Bush veto a defense bill last term? He may have, when the surrender monkeys tried putting published schedules for troop movements in it. But I dont think those stupid provisions were actually put in, so I don't believe Bush ever vetoed one of those bills.

Kandahar said:

There are ways to reduce the number of expenditures without giving the president broad, sweeping power to pick which parts of bills he likes.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's a narrow, specifically defined power to counter the broad sweeping power of Congress to be completely irresponsible with my money, and yours.

I mean, if you want them to build a bridge in Bumluck San Francisco, write them a personal check. Local state matters are not supposed to be part of the federal budget. Got back and read Article 1 Section 8 carefully.

Kandahar said:

Congress didn't vote for a defense appropriations bill without that boat ramp. If there's too much wasteful spending, the president can veto the entire thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in your dreams he can.

I see you didn't bother to define "too much".

"Too much" = $1 in excess of what the Constitution allows under Article 1, Section 8.

Kandahar said:

It also forces an end to compromise, bipartisanship, and (laugh) a deliberative body solving our nation's problems together.

Click to expand...

You mean the Congress would have to stop swapping spit and start discussing the merits of the bill itself?

That's shocking! Imagine...a congressman finally doing what he's paid to do.

Can't have that.

All those special interests that feed them using your money would begin to starve.

Kandahar said:

The President does NOT have to sign them. He can veto them and tell Congress that there's too much pork, if he wants to. And people like yourself who care so much about it can put pressure on him to do just that.

Click to expand...

You don't have a lot of experience out here, do you?

Guess what? They're called "must sign" bills for a reason.

Your little theoretical ivory tower shore is purty, though.

Real politics, however, is all about power. And power is defined by who controls the money.

And the Congress ultimately controls the money.

You are aware of the reason there are so many restrictions on what Congress can do, aren't you? Yes, of course you are. Congress is the most dangerous of the three branches of government, is why.

Kandahar said:

The point is that there will no longer be any compromises, because no one can negotiate in good faith if the President has a line-item veto.

Click to expand...

OH! You don't mean there won't be any compromises, you mean Congressman Ted won't agree to vote for Congressman Bob's bill to "Change the Decimal-Point with A Comma to Make Us Look As Dumb As the Europeans and Eliminate the Waste Involved In Putting That ,/. Button On The Calculator" unless the bill includes the provision that the Federal Government finance the soon to be needed Retirement Home For Outmoded ,/. Buttons in his district.

"Compromise" used to be discussions on the MERITS of a bill, not horse-trading to exchange irrelevant pork items to get meritless bills passed.

Compromise used to be "I think 45 is a good speed limit". "No, 80 is good, my constituents tell me". "Let's screw'em. Let's make it 55, even though the Constitution doesn't give us authority to set speed limits." "Okay".

Kandahar said:

If Congress is Republican-controlled and the White House is Democrat-controlled, then the parties will need to work together to pass legislation.

Click to expand...

"Work together". Doesn't that sound so much nicer than "selling out"? Makes you feel good when you can hide what's really going on in such palsy words, doesn't it?

Kandahar said:

So let's suppose that the Republicans in Congress give the Democrats something that they want in a bill, and the Democrats in Congress give the Republicans something that they want, so the bill passes.

Click to expand...

Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill, not bridges to nowhere.

But let's pretend we're discusing the Highway Bill, always a favorite spot for boar hunting, right? A bridge to nowhere should be vetoed. Why pretend Congress, the mob of fools, is doing anything right? If the Alaskan delegation is certain such nonsense won't survive the President's veto, they'll be more likely to demand that everyone else's projects are sane, needed, and unporky.

Sounds like a good thing, making the Congressmen uncertain that their stupid projects that waste my money might not make it through the process.

Kandahar said:

Then the Democratic President vetoes everything that the Republicans wanted and keeps the rest.

Click to expand...

And the Republicans wisely refuse forever after to agree to Democrat pork in ANY bill whatsoever.

And the next term when the Democrat president is replaced by an American, then the Democrats won't want to play the Porky Pig Game.

How does the American taxpayer lose?

They can't. It's a win!

Kandahar said:

Bam, suddenly no one ever wants to compromise on anything ever again.

Click to expand...

Nope.

BAM. None of those asses wants to trade PORK again. They'll have to start discussing the merits of the bills.

You have a problem with that?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

"Work together". Doesn't that sound so much nicer than "selling out"? Makes you feel good when you can hide what's really going on in such palsy words, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Ah, I sense yet another extremist...For some reason I remember you as being one of the more sensible conservatives prior to your hiatus. I can't imagine where I got that impression.

So you're a member of the anyone-who-compromises-or-disagrees-with-me-on-anything-is-a-traitor camp? If that's the case, I probably shouldn't even waste my time debating you. But we'll see. :2wave:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill, not bridges to nowhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's. Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill: Say that Congress is debating some education bill. The Democrats want $20 billion to give to the states to fund public schools. The Republicans aren't wild about the idea, but they want $10 billion to fund vouchers in failing school systems. The Democrats aren't wild about that, but since both are getting what they want and they can live with the compromise, we have an education bill that a majority of Congress likes. Then the President vetoes all the voucher provisions. Suddenly there are no more compromises.

This is exactly why the President should not be entrusted with that kind of power. (And don't you DARE try to turn this into a discussion about whether or not YOU think the example I cited would be a good bill. It merely serves to illustrate a point.)

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

And the Republicans wisely refuse forever after to agree to Democrat pork in ANY bill whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Nope, they just refuse to work with the Democrats on any bill period. If they've been double-crossed by the President, why should they ever compromise again? It's just not worth the risk that the things the Republicans wanted would be stripped from the final bill.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

And the next term when the Democrat president is replaced by an American, then the Democrats won't want to play the Porky Pig Game.

How does the American taxpayer lose?

They can't. It's a win!

Click to expand...

Nope, they'll work with the Republicans until the first time the Republican President strips away the Democratic provisions from a bill. And then they never work with him again. Or maybe they won't even wait that long...maybe they'll just ASSUME he'll double-cross them and not work with him from the start.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Nope.

BAM. None of those asses wants to trade PORK again. They'll have to start discussing the merits of the bills.

You have a problem with that?

Click to expand...

How exactly do you distinguish pork-barrel spending from the "merits of the bills," and how do you codify that into a constitutional amendment?

Kandahar said:

Ah, I sense yet another extremist...For some reason I remember you as being one of the more sensible conservatives prior to your hiatus. I can't imagine where I got that impression.

Click to expand...

I'm still sensible. Always have been. Not that I'm a "conservative". that term defies definition. I'm simply the incarnation of reason.

Yes. I have to be an extremist. I mean, I said that if the Congress couldn't trade pork they couldn't compromise.

No.

Wait.

That's what you said.

I said if they couldn't trade pork they'd have to discuss matters more relevant to the bill at hand. Yeah. That's really extreme, isn't it? I mean, the nerve of me, expecting elected officials to do their jobs properly.

Kandahar said:

So you're a member of the anyone-who-compromises-or-disagrees-with-me-on-anything-is-a-traitor camp?

Click to expand...

I don't go camping, not since that incident with the moose....never mind.

You're the one saying they can't compromise, not me.

I'm saying they shouldn't be trading my money to avoid compromising.

Kandahar said:

If that's the case, I probably shouldn't even waste my time debating you. But we'll see. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Actually, you shouldn't waste my time ranting at me if that's the best you're going to put up as an argument.

Kandahar said:

Yes, let's. Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill: Say that Congress is debating some education bill.

Click to expand...

Excellent.

Federal spending for education is not allowed under Article 1, Section 8. Thomas Jefferson recognized this, requested the Congress introduce an Amendment to the Constitution making that authorization, the amendment was not introduced, the spending was not forthcoming.

Bill violates the Constitution, automatic veto, without Line Item discussion.

Passage of bill should be met with a challenge in the courts before any dollars are disbursed.

Kandahar said:

This is exactly why the President should not be entrusted with that kind of power. (And don't you DARE try to turn this into a discussion about whether or not YOU think the example I cited would be a good bill. It merely serves to illustrate a point.)

Click to expand...

Dare?

Who? Me?

I didn't even bother to read your example. You need to locate an example of Constitutional spending before you go off on a line-item hunt.

Kandahar said:

Nope, they just refuse to work with the Democrats on any bill period.

Click to expand...

Works for me. I stay well away from ponds that leeches in them, too.

Kandahar said:

If they've been double-crossed by the President, why should they ever compromise again? It's just not worth the risk that the things the Republicans wanted would be stripped from the final bill.

Click to expand...

Maybe they should restrict their wishing to things the Constitution actually allows, and then the whole matter no longer has such importance.

There's an idea for the socialist to get indigestion over.

Kandahar said:

Nope, they'll work with the Republicans until the first time the Republican President strips away the Democratic provisions from a bill. And then they never work with him again.

Click to expand...

Works for me. So you're saying a Line Item Veto would wind up with the Republicans not trading pork with the Democrats and the Democrats not trading pork with the Republicans.

How can the taxpayer lose?

Stop! You're supposed to be arguing against the Line Item Veto, not supporting it.

Kandahar said:

Or maybe they won't even wait that long...maybe they'll just ASSUME he'll double-cross them and not work with him from the start.

Click to expand...

Even better.

Kandahar said:

How exactly do you distinguish pork-barrel spending from the "merits of the bills," and how do you codify that into a constitutional amendment?

Click to expand...

Well....gee by golly...."Hey, YO! We gots here twenty billion buckaroos for body armor and armored Hummers for the troops in Iraq, and over in this here quiet little corner of the bill, we gots a hundred thousand for Bob's library in I-da-Hoe!, a quarter million for Joe's Schmoo Farm in Alabamer, and another two billion scattered in tiny little lumps all over the country.

Sometimes pork is hard to find....like when you buy a can of "pork" and beans, you can't see but one peice of something that probably was a used football. In other cases it's not that hard to spot.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Sure could.

Especially Obama.

So?

you could try looking at the real point.

Click to expand...

I am looking at the real point,this thing is a double edge sword. It is fine if the president is a member of your party and it is not fine if the president is not a member of your party. Your are missing the whole picture, the president will not use it to cut out just pork spending, he will use it to cut out spending for things that he does not want spending for. He may not even cut out any pork, he may leave it in there to bribe some members of his party to keep putting things in the bills he wants to sign.

President- I want a dirt Museum in my home town
One of the members of the president's party- I want a funding for the study of cow farts

next bill-
Line item veto 1- funding for the scientific study of the effects of methane gas impact on the environment emitted by domesticated farm animals. pass
Line item veto 2- funding for modern art museum.pass

Presidents don't get re-elected by being totally ignorant. Bush and Carter and Ford prove that.

Click to expand...

Politicians however know that voters have a short attention span and a short memory,what he is doing now will have no impact on him when he runs for reelection it won't even have any effect on the politicians who have midterm elections coming up. It probably won't even be a issue.

don't know what planet you live on, but it's routine for military approrpiations bills, you know, the bills that, among other things, authorize the paychecks for those guys with the uniforms, to be decorated like Christmas trees with all sorts of completely unimaginable pork projects....because the President has to sign them.

Click to expand...

The president can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill free of pork. He can tell the media that he refuses to sign any thing with pork he can explain to the public some of the hoopal that is in the bill that made him not want to sign it. It seems it is routine for any spending bill to be laced with pork,because as long as a president will sign a bill with pork in then that is what congress and senate are going to try to push. Presidents have refused to sign bills before,this should be no different.

This is the real world, not the little fantasy lands the anarchist idealist children live in.

Click to expand...

I thought anarchist children and morons(an adult who is a anarchist) were against government,police and all that stuff? So anarchist have not relation to not wanting the president to have line veto power.