Line item voting

[Ddrak]

Lurker said in the MA thread that he didn't think Line Item voting was a good idea. To avoid derailing too much, I'm just wondering why it isn't. It solves almost all the problem Clinton tried to get line-item vetos for and does it without going outside the constitution. Lawmakers can say exactly what they did and didn't vote for and it eliminates riders.

I guess I just don't see the downside.

Dd

[Partha]

Vote for a provision, then vote against funding it.

Oops.

[Kulaf]

Is has been put forth in the past (I believe by Klast) that not having pork provisions.....which would surely get voted down.......would inhibit the ability of legislation to get passed.

[Ddrak]

The thing is, it doesn't actually happen that way. The government must pass legislation or they'll find themselves out of a job at the next election. It would have an effect of removing the funding side from the legislation side, but that just lumps all the revenue collection into more central budget bills. Legislators aren't just going to vote against everything because it doesn't contain pork - if there's no pork to be had then they'll quickly adjust and find better ways to judge whether legislation is good for them. Mostly, it means that legislation becomes a lot more concise because no elected official wants to sit through all 1000 pages of line items if something can't be passed as a whole.

Dd

[Lurker]

Repeating what I said here:

Line item voting would be a horrible idea, allowing Senators to vote yes on the easy and popular provisions while voting no on the unpopular ones. And just because something is unpopular or difficult doesn't mean it isn't necessary. For example, forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is popular and mandates are not, but both are absolutely required for reform to work.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Repeating what I said here:

Line item voting would be a horrible idea, allowing Senators to vote yes on the easy and popular provisions while voting no on the unpopular ones. And just because something is unpopular or difficult doesn't mean it isn't necessary. For example, forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is popular and mandates are not, but both are absolutely required for reform to work.

You don't know that. Nobody knows that. How about we try it and see what happens? That's the problem with leftisit socialists like yourself.. you think the dynamic in America is so rigid, so fragile, that unless its controled to the nth degree, all will fail.

Line item voting would prevent or reduce:
1. Pork
2. Special interest influence

And it would increase:

1. Leadership
2. Accountability
3. Transparency
4. Bi-partisanship.

But I do see your point, where would the leftisit agenda be without pork and special interests... and god forbid we inject leadership, accountability, tansparaency and bi-partisanship into the equation.

[Lurker]

I didn't mention pork; that was Kulaf. I mentioned necessary but unpopular components of legislation. Why don't you research what an insurance death spiral is. Maybe then you'll understand why every country that has universal coverage, whether through single payer or through private insurance, has a mandate.

And the frothy "leftisit socialist" rhetoric is pretty amusing. Keep it up. You don't look at all unhinged!

[Embar Angylwrath]

I didn't mention pork; that was Kulaf. I mentioned necessary but unpopular components of legislation. Why don't you research what an insurance death spiral is. Maybe then you'll understand why every country that has universal coverage, whether through single payer or through private insurance, has a mandate.

And the frothy "leftisit socialist" rhetoric is pretty amusing. Keep it up. You don't look at all unhinged!

Define for me "necessary but unpopular", and please dont just link to other tired posts. And I'd ask you to consider that there may be a substantial amount of necessary AND popular objectives that can be achieved through line item voting, Care to debate that?

[Lurker]

I already gave an example. And no, I don't want to "debate" with you. You've shown you aren't honest or interested in discussion, and playing whack-a-mole with a lie machine gets old after awhile. I like the over the top wingnut parody routine you have going though. Lets stick to that.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I'm gonna throw this out there:

Embar, I think you're wrong in calling it the "leftist agenda". I think what you really should be calling it is "progressive agenda".

[Ddrak]

Line item voting would be a horrible idea, allowing Senators to vote yes on the easy and popular provisions while voting no on the unpopular ones. And just because something is unpopular or difficult doesn't mean it isn't necessary. For example, forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is popular and mandates are not, but both are absolutely required for reform to work.

Mandates aren't unpopular - it depends largely on packaging. You mandate insurance by providing a default public option funded from taxation and then give tax rebates to people who go with private option.

Yes, you do need some degree of mandates to avoid adverse selection, but if you can't make it popular then you probably haven't hit on the right formula. Alternately you need to form some sort of bipartisan agreement to pass what needs to be passed before you run it up for a vote.

Ignoring Embar's barb at the end, I agree with his 6 points and I think it would be a good thing for the US on the whole.

Dd