Line Item Veto has got to come back!

[Gatekeeper]

The President should accept or reject a bill in its entirety. What we need is the Congress to stop combining things that don't belong together.

Remember. When a line item veto is used, those items vetoed are automatically sent back to the legislature to be re-voted on individually for passage by super majority.

This has been used to great effect by some Governors in stopping Legislature's wasteful spending. It CAN be used for partisan tactics as well, that's just the nature of the beastie. But if the legislature is unified, these line item vetos can be overridden. It's just much harder, and trust me... if a president starts using it willy nilly, they will come together to start overriding them at times.

This power is the death knell to special interest pork and political pandering (at least for one party which is STILL not a bad thing).

A big part of the answer is term limits for congresscritters.

Absolutely. I consider it public safety inspired by food safety standards. Food can be kept on the shelves only so long before it becomes too rotten to sell. Those against term limits seem to think it is in the public's responsibility to be so aware of the goings on of a very complex governmental system to be informed on every subject and pull a politician at a political reasonable time. This is ludicrous in today's society.

We currently need laws that act as the stock boy, pulling old items off the shelf lest the public be made sick or poisoned by bad product that has been lingering and put fresh items out. The analogy, when you consider it holds quite well for it's humorous nature.

I personally have been desiring of an amendment that does a few things.

1. Term limits of 2 terms in or 12 years in office, which ever is longer at any elected position, save president which is already covered.
2. A lifetime cap in elected office at ALL levels (local to national) of 24 years.
3. A mandatory retirement age from all bureaucracies supporting government at 24 years, so we do not develop bureaucratic and appointee "Courtiers".
4. A 10 year ban on elected officials going into businesses that contract with, lobby or report on government in the media. Consider this a 'conflict of interest' prohibition, preventing the abuse of previous position.

Do those four things and you will devastate the political class which in desperate need of devastation.

Nice Post

Looking at 1. thru 4. OMG that would cut down on so much corruption the entire system might collapse into honesty and integrity! Could we handle this change?

 

[ihopehefails]

The President should accept or reject a bill in its entirety. What we need is the Congress to stop combining things that don't belong together.

Remember. When a line item veto is used, those items vetoed are automatically sent back to the legislature to be re-voted on individually for passage by super majority.

This has been used to great effect by some Governors in stopping Legislature's wasteful spending. It CAN be used for partisan tactics as well, that's just the nature of the beastie. But if the legislature is unified, these line item vetos can be overridden. It's just much harder, and trust me... if a president starts using it willy nilly, they will come together to start overriding them at times.

This power is the death knell to special interest pork and political pandering (at least for one party which is STILL not a bad thing).

A big part of the answer is term limits for congresscritters.

Absolutely. I consider it public safety inspired by food safety standards. Food can be kept on the shelves only so long before it becomes too rotten to sell. Those against term limits seem to think it is in the public's responsibility to be so aware of the goings on of a very complex governmental system to be informed on every subject and pull a politician at a political reasonable time. This is ludicrous in today's society.

We currently need laws that act as the stock boy, pulling old items off the shelf lest the public be made sick or poisoned by bad product that has been lingering and put fresh items out. The analogy, when you consider it holds quite well for it's humorous nature.

I personally have been desiring of an amendment that does a few things.

1. Term limits of 2 terms in or 12 years in office, which ever is longer at any elected position, save president which is already covered.
2. A lifetime cap in elected office at ALL levels (local to national) of 24 years.
3. A mandatory retirement age from all bureaucracies supporting government at 24 years, so we do not develop bureaucratic and appointee "Courtiers".
4. A 10 year ban on elected officials going into businesses that contract with, lobby or report on government in the media. Consider this a 'conflict of interest' prohibition, preventing the abuse of previous position.

Do those four things and you will devastate the political class which in desperate need of devastation.

Nice Post

Looking at 1. thru 4. OMG that would cut down on so much corruption the entire system might collapse into honesty and integrity! Could we handle this change?

Yes.

 

[rightwinger]

A big part of the answer is term limits for congresscritters.

Yeah...but my Congresscritter is better than yours...I wanna see yours defeated and of course mine deserves to stay...

/Tongue-In-Cheek

One other thing that WILL help going forward: 1984 - all newly hired federal employees are no longer offered 'Civil Service' benefits, they are subject to the same retirement program that the rest of us enjoy, namely Social Security.

The sooner we dump the deadwood that was hired before '84 (2/3 of the senate is over 70 and many are in their 80's and 90's) the sooner our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security and Medicare.

Your mission in 2010 and 2012: Vote an incumbent out, especially if their federal service started prior to 1984.

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yeah...but my Congresscritter is better than yours...I wanna see yours defeated and of course mine deserves to stay...

/Tongue-In-Cheek

One other thing that WILL help going forward: 1984 - all newly hired federal employees are no longer offered 'Civil Service' benefits, they are subject to the same retirement program that the rest of us enjoy, namely Social Security.

The sooner we dump the deadwood that was hired before '84 (2/3 of the senate is over 70 and many are in their 80's and 90's) the sooner our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security and Medicare.

Your mission in 2010 and 2012: Vote an incumbent out, especially if their federal service started prior to 1984.

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

Makes a LOT of sense if you believe sooner is better than later when it comes to subjecting our leadership to the same laws and benefits the rest of us live by.

If not 'We, The Voters', then who?​

 

[rightwinger]

One other thing that WILL help going forward: 1984 - all newly hired federal employees are no longer offered 'Civil Service' benefits, they are subject to the same retirement program that the rest of us enjoy, namely Social Security.

The sooner we dump the deadwood that was hired before '84 (2/3 of the senate is over 70 and many are in their 80's and 90's) the sooner our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security and Medicare.

Your mission in 2010 and 2012: Vote an incumbent out, especially if their federal service started prior to 1984.

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

Makes a LOT of sense if you believe sooner is better than later when it comes to subjecting our leadership to the same laws and benefits the rest of us live by.

If not 'We, The Voters', then who?​

What the heck does any of this have to do with a line item veto? You sound like Titanic Sailor

 

[AVG-JOE]

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

Makes a LOT of sense if you believe sooner is better than later when it comes to subjecting our leadership to the same laws and benefits the rest of us live by.

If not 'We, The Voters', then who?​

What the heck does any of this have to do with a line item veto? You sound like Titanic Sailor

Just the progression of the conversation, brother. That's why they call them 'threads'.

 

[Polk]

A big part of the answer is term limits for congresscritters.

Yes, surely making lobbyists even stronger is the answer...

 

[Polk]

When we had the line item veto in the 90s it was one reason that we were able to control spending but that got overturned by the courts so it is no longer used. I think we should have a constitutional amendment that gives the president the power to veto all or any part of a budget and whatever part gets vetoed can get revoted on in the congress. I think this simple thing should be able to draw down the budget.

The president has NEVER had a line item veto. It was pushed for by Reagan but never got any traction.

The reason Congress managed to keep spending in line in the late 20th century is something called PAYGO. It was a rule that congress imposed on itself that said any new spending had to be balanced by cuts somewhere else, or a tax increase.

The moment PAYGO expired in 2002 Bush and the republican congress borrowed a few hundred billion from the Chinese and their Arab buddies on our behalf and handed it over to their corporate cronies that purchased the election for them.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only did Reagan wish it, but so did Clinton...Only to be struck down by SCOTUS...

Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995. ... Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in 1998

So will the Congress Craft another Bill to override SCOTUS, or should they open it for debate for an Amendment to the Constitution?

Congress can't override the Supreme Court on this issue. The bill, as constructed, was pretty obviously unconstitutional.

 

[The T]

Yeah...but my Congresscritter is better than yours...I wanna see yours defeated and of course mine deserves to stay...

/Tongue-In-Cheek

One other thing that WILL help going forward: 1984 - all newly hired federal employees are no longer offered 'Civil Service' benefits, they are subject to the same retirement program that the rest of us enjoy, namely Social Security.

The sooner we dump the deadwood that was hired before '84 (2/3 of the senate is over 70 and many are in their 80's and 90's) the sooner our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security and Medicare.

Your mission in 2010 and 2012: Vote an incumbent out, especially if their federal service started prior to 1984.

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

I see. So in your humble view? Allow them to do more damage before they take their dirt nap? yeah that makes sense too, doesn't it?

 

[The T]

The president has NEVER had a line item veto. It was pushed for by Reagan but never got any traction.

The reason Congress managed to keep spending in line in the late 20th century is something called PAYGO. It was a rule that congress imposed on itself that said any new spending had to be balanced by cuts somewhere else, or a tax increase.

The moment PAYGO expired in 2002 Bush and the republican congress borrowed a few hundred billion from the Chinese and their Arab buddies on our behalf and handed it over to their corporate cronies that purchased the election for them.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only did Reagan wish it, but so did Clinton...Only to be struck down by SCOTUS...

Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995. ... Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in 1998

So will the Congress Craft another Bill to override SCOTUS, or should they open it for debate for an Amendment to the Constitution?

Congress can't override the Supreme Court on this issue. The bill, as constructed, was pretty obviously unconstitutional.

YES they can. Remember this Polky? there are THREE EQUAL but SEPARATE Branches of Government. Or didn't you learn that in grade 3?

Obviously you didn't. The SCOTUS NEVER has the final say. There are TWO OTHER branches that can override them.

It however MIGHT work in Chavezs' Venezuela which you seem to Idolize, but NOT here.

 

[rightwinger]

One other thing that WILL help going forward: 1984 - all newly hired federal employees are no longer offered 'Civil Service' benefits, they are subject to the same retirement program that the rest of us enjoy, namely Social Security.

The sooner we dump the deadwood that was hired before '84 (2/3 of the senate is over 70 and many are in their 80's and 90's) the sooner our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security and Medicare.

Your mission in 2010 and 2012: Vote an incumbent out, especially if their federal service started prior to 1984.

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

I see. So in your humble view? Allow them to do more damage before they take their dirt nap? yeah that makes sense too, doesn't it?

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

 

[geauxtohell]

No. It gives too much power to the executive branch.

 

[The T]

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

I see. So in your humble view? Allow them to do more damage before they take their dirt nap? yeah that makes sense too, doesn't it?

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

I see you cling to your Elitist mentality. No RW...Their JOBS aren't safe eitther. There's ALWAYS someone that can take their place with fresh views, and views that closely resemble that of folks that RESPECT the Constitution, which you seem not to care a WIT of.

Be Very careful. The "Dump The Incumbents" movement is gathering steam...more than you know.

 

[goldcatt]

No. It gives too much power to the executive branch.

I agree. There are obvious problems with the system, but there are better solutions.

 

[Polk]

Not only did Reagan wish it, but so did Clinton...Only to be struck down by SCOTUS...

Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995. ... Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in 1998

So will the Congress Craft another Bill to override SCOTUS, or should they open it for debate for an Amendment to the Constitution?

Congress can't override the Supreme Court on this issue. The bill, as constructed, was pretty obviously unconstitutional.

YES they can. Remember this Polky? there are THREE EQUAL but SEPARATE Branches of Government. Or didn't you learn that in grade 3?

Obviously you didn't. The SCOTUS NEVER has the final say. There are TWO OTHER branches that can override them.

It however MIGHT work in Chavezs' Venezuela which you seem to Idolize, but NOT here.

Congress does not have the power to unilaterally change the Constitution.

 

[Polk]

No. It gives too much power to the executive branch.

Yes, but assuming the amendment were limited to the budget, that's a good thing.

 

[rightwinger]

I see. So in your humble view? Allow them to do more damage before they take their dirt nap? yeah that makes sense too, doesn't it?

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

I see you cling to your Elitist mentality. No RW...Their JOBS aren't safe eitther. There's ALWAYS someone that can take their place with fresh views, and views that closely resemble that of folks that RESPECT the Constitution, which you seem not to care a WIT of.

Be Very careful. The "Dump The Incumbents" movement is gathering steam...more than you know.

What the hell are you ranting about?

They have ALWAYS been subject to reelection. Dump the incumbent is always an option.....people just like the incumbents and want others to dump theirs

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

I see you cling to your Elitist mentality. No RW...Their JOBS aren't safe eitther. There's ALWAYS someone that can take their place with fresh views, and views that closely resemble that of folks that RESPECT the Constitution, which you seem not to care a WIT of.

Be Very careful. The "Dump The Incumbents" movement is gathering steam...more than you know.

What the hell are you ranting about?

They have ALWAYS been subject to reelection. Dump the incumbent is always an option.....people just like the incumbents and want others to dump theirs

Same reason "congressional approval" ratings are useless.

Not that the conservatives haven't been lapping it up since '06.

 

[goldcatt]

No. It gives too much power to the executive branch.

Yes, but assuming the amendment were limited to the budget, that's a good thing.

I disagree. What you're proposing is basically saying it's OK for Congress to keep adding pork to bills, and it's the President's job to be their babysitter since they are incapable of acting like adults. Absolving Congress of responsibility for their own actions and placing it in the Executive's hands isn't a solution, it's barely a band-aid.

The better option is to force Congress to take responsibility and have the bills come out clean in the first place. The obvious solution is to change the internal procedure that allows unrelated amendments to legislation. The less obvious but more likely (in a pig's eye, I know) are to stop making seats artificially safe for party boss and big donor favorites through gerrymandering and to rein in the money.

 

[Polk]

No. It gives too much power to the executive branch.

Yes, but assuming the amendment were limited to the budget, that's a good thing.

I disagree. What you're proposing is basically saying it's OK for Congress to keep adding pork to bills, and it's the President's job to be their babysitter since they are incapable of acting like adults. Absolving Congress of responsibility for their own actions and placing it in the Executive's hands isn't a solution, it's barely a band-aid.

The better option is to force Congress to take responsibility and have the bills come out clean in the first place. The obvious solution is to change the internal procedure that allow sunrelated amendments to legislation. The less obvious but more likely (in a pig's eye, I know) are to stop making seats artificially safe for party boss and big donor favorites through gerrymandering and to rein in the money.

I focus on what's practical.