Want some bacon?

[Kulaf]

Then you should support a line item veto....not oppose it. More bills are likely veto'd due to attachments added on than due to the actual bill in question. The line item veto that was tried applied only to spending or taxing provisions within bills.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html

[Relbeek Einre]

Then you should support a line item veto....not oppose it. More bills are likely veto'd due to attachments added on than due to the actual bill in question.

So? Then let Congress put forward a bill that removes the attachments, or not. Then the bill dies if Congress don't want it on the President's desk without riders.

My fear about line item vetos:

Bill passes doing two things:

A) Abolishing important federal program.
B) Replacing it with better federal program.

El Presidente line item vetos B.

[Kulaf]

In exercising this authority, the President had to determine that such cancellation would (1) reduce the federal budget deficit, (2) not impair any essential government functions, and (3) not harm the national interest.

[Aabe]

Then you should support a line item veto....not oppose it. More bills are likely veto'd due to attachments added on than due to the actual bill in question.

So? Then let Congress put forward a bill that removes the attachments, or not. Then the bill dies if Congress don't want it on the President's desk without riders.

My fear about line item vetos:

Bill passes doing two things:

A) Abolishing important federal program.
B) Replacing it with better federal program.

El Presidente line item vetos B.

Don't be dangling that argruement around the "less governement is better government" people Beek. They will leave foot prints on your back running to encourage their senators to push for more use of the line item veto.

[Partha]

Less government led to the 'Minutemen' getting ready to shoot Hispanics around the Arizona border. A real compelling argument.

[Klast Brell]

]Don't be dangling that argruement around the "less governement is better government" people Beek. They will leave foot prints on your back running to encourage their senators to push for more use of the line item veto.

Until you get a democrat in the Whitehouse. Then you will be screaming about how unfair the line item veto is.

[Akhbarali]

Until you get a democrat in the Whitehouse. Then you will be screaming about how unfair the line item veto is.

I know you were addressing this to Aabe but there are a lot of moderate-conservative Republicans like myself that would support it regardless of the party in power. I supported it under Bill Clinton, I support it when Democratic govenors have the power and I would support it under another Democratic president. In fact, I would be perfectly willing to see it go into effect the day W leaves office if that would make it more acceptable to Democrats. I do not view giving the executive more power to control abusive spending as a partisan issue, I view it as an issue of legislative vs exectutive power/control. I assume that is why the courts struck it down on the national level (violation of the seperation of powers, specifically Congressional control of the budgetary process) although this discussion has piqued my interest enough that I might do some reading on the subject to find out for sure.

Akhbar

[Relbeek Einre]

And I agree the issue has its ups and downs on both sides... I just strongly feel it's a bad idea overall.

[Akhbarali]

I understand the reservations. It comes down to whether you have a Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian view point with regards the balance between executive and legislative power. Many of my friends would agree with you athough less today than 20 years ago when Reagan's people were pushing the idea hard. I would even concede that it could be abused but at this point I am willing to lean a little towards the side of "abusive" cuts as opposed to the current abusive spending. I just can't see Congress disciplining themselves when it comes to pork barreling (for obvious reasons related to elections trumping good governance) and the current budgetarty process serves as an annual reminder of that fact especially in the House.

I thought the Line Item Veto of the 90's ended because of sunset provisions not constitutional questions so it might be a moot point at the federal level.

Akhbar

[Relbeek Einre]

I think that if the Congress wants to allow the President to strike items off a passed bill, they should pass it as a collection of bills that the President signs or vetoes individually. That seems fair to me. That way, line-item or overall bill signing becomes case-by-case at Congress' discretion. Or simply make any bill non-line-itemable unless Congress specifically marks the bill as line-itemable.

That'd allay a number of my concerns and tip the balance of my opinion more towards the line-item veto power. However, I'm still wary, and am not really keen in general on giving Congress and the President one more way to game the system.

[Aabe]

]Don't be dangling that argruement around the "less governement is better government" people Beek. They will leave foot prints on your back running to encourage their senators to push for more use of the line item veto.

Until you get a democrat in the Whitehouse. Then you will be screaming about how unfair the line item veto is.

Nope. There is a crowd that just wants less spending, Don't care which side. The Line Item veto pretty much works for them no matter who is in office, .. . if it is used.

[Partha]

it's not Congress's fault that you bitches want everything without paying for it.

[Kulaf]

Yeah lord knows Hawaii needs another interstate highway.

[Partha]

Of course, if you ask Hawaiians, they probably say they DO need it. They just don't want to pay for it.

Much like folks who want border security and law enforcement spending cuts. Or those who want their roads and schools well maintained and continue to elect people to cut the taxes to pay for them.

[Kulaf]

Man.....jokes are just wasted on the humor impaired.