Line Item Veto has got to come back!

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[Oddball]

Going to take a constitutional amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

When did we ever have a line item veto?

It will change the balance of power between the legislative and executive branch. Not as easy as it sounds

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm with Dude on this one. It's going to take a constitutional amendment. And what RW said, there has never been a presidential Line Item veto. Gubernatorial Line Item Vetoes have existed in some states.... and that's where the idea comes from.

That said, we need about 2-4 anti corruption amendments ranging from line item veto to, anti-gerrymandering to term limits for elected officials AND bureaucrats.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

We absolutely must stop congresscritters combining shit with sugar.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Since the "Line-Item Veto" is to be solely used for Fiscal Restraint.................
Not many want to be limited in repaying their PALS for their loyalty, in my opinion.

Bill Clinton used the line-item Veto 82 times in 11 Bills BTW.

The latest line-item veto is not as effective as the 1996 version since it requires this B.S. CONGRESS, one of our major problems, Congressional approval, which means they can rescind whatever the president would find as pork barrel spending.

How can any government keep passing such lame useless BILLS, then water them down making them nothing more than a passport to corruption and mismanagement is OUR fault for allowing it to perpetuate itself.

And one could bet that THEY are passing laws to make it harder for the citizens to make changes and put a stop to this nonsense, as we speak, ensuring their dominance over the citizens.

 

[Xenophon]

It would be pointless.

The real problem is what we call 'earmarks', things attached with only a paper clip to bills that have nothing to do with one another that have to be voted on then signed into law.

This kind of procedural change could be enacted right away, but it would end political favors so neither of the two parties will do it.

The chances of getting a Constitutional change are nill, the requirement is too stiff for it.

 

[The T]

It would be pointless.

The real problem is what we call 'earmarks', things attached with only a paper clip to bills that have nothing to do with one another that have to be voted on then signed into law.

This kind of procedural change could be enacted right away, but it would end political favors so neither of the two parties will do it.

The chances of getting a Constitutional change are nill, the requirement is too stiff for it.

True. But what I would like to see is a bill survive on it's merit(s) alone without any riders attached. But the chances of that are what you have already described.

The only way is that the People, (whom really control the purse strings) demand it overwhelmingly.

But does pessemism/apathy rule these tough times?

 

[Gatekeeper]

It would be pointless.

The real problem is what we call 'earmarks', things attached with only a paper clip to bills that have nothing to do with one another that have to be voted on then signed into law.

This kind of procedural change could be enacted right away, but it would end political favors so neither of the two parties will do it.

The chances of getting a Constitutional change are nill, the requirement is too stiff for it.

True. But what I would like to see is a bill survive on it's merit(s) alone without any riders attached. But the chances of that are what you have already described.

The only way is that the People, (whom really control the purse strings) demand it overwhelmingly.

But does pessemism/apathy rule these tough times?

Can all of us imagine if contracts in general were written in this chaotic manner as our own government in Washington D.C writes these BILLS?

They would all be in favor of the Lessor and never the lessee etc etc. That type of "contract" is like having an open-ended agreement with essentially no limits.
And we, the citizens, sit back, complain about this out-of-control congress/senate and D.C in general and still are unable to stop them from this, in my opinion, Abuse of Power?

WHAT A JOKE!! and it's not friggen funny​

 

[The T]

It would be pointless.

The real problem is what we call 'earmarks', things attached with only a paper clip to bills that have nothing to do with one another that have to be voted on then signed into law.

This kind of procedural change could be enacted right away, but it would end political favors so neither of the two parties will do it.

The chances of getting a Constitutional change are nill, the requirement is too stiff for it.

True. But what I would like to see is a bill survive on it's merit(s) alone without any riders attached. But the chances of that are what you have already described.

The only way is that the People, (whom really control the purse strings) demand it overwhelmingly.

But does pessemism/apathy rule these tough times?

Can all of us imagine if contracts in general were written in this chaotic manner as our own government in Washington D.C writes these BILLS?

They would all be in favor of the Lessor and never the lessee etc etc. That type of "contract" is like having an open-ended agreement with essentially no limits.
And we, the citizens, sit back, complain about this out-of-control congress/senate and D.C in general and still are unable to stop them from this, in my opinion, Abuse of Power?

WHAT A JOKE!! and it's not friggen funny​

Interesting take on it. I have to agree with it. But therin it shows that the people have become disinterested to the point of apathy in my view due to the complexity of what is churned out of Congress, and by sheer numbers to where it becomes so unweildly that only a Lawyer can decipher it, and precisely by design.

Abuse of Power indeed! Good Post.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm with Dude on this one. It's going to take a constitutional amendment. And what RW said, there has never been a presidential Line Item veto. Gubernatorial Line Item Vetoes have existed in some states.... and that's where the idea comes from.

That said, we need about 2-4 anti corruption amendments ranging from line item veto to, anti-gerrymandering to term limits for elected officials AND bureaucrats.

Gerrymandering is one of the biggest problems we have as far as Congress is concerned, second only to campaign finance. Curb the money at both the State and Federal levels and get rid of the ability to draw ironclad partisan districts on the State level and you'll go a long way toward solving the problem without the need for a host of constitutional amendments that will never pass.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

 

[The T]

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?

 

[The T]

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

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

Tongue firmly implanted in cheek, but still a very sound point.

Too many look the other way when it comes to THEIR congress critter. This is why term limits are desperately needed. For instance, Michele Bachmann. Love her but she's been in congress 19 years now. Time for her to move up or out regardless of how much I like her work. David Obey of WI has been in congress since the JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION!!!!! If that isn't entrenchment due to pandering, I don't know what is. This dipshit probably thinks himself entitled to the post for life. He needs to be dissuaded of this delusion.

Corruption happens over time to EVERYONE. It's the nature of power and therefore, since we seem to know that somewhere between 12 and 20 years it starts happening, best to be banning people from getting themselves in trouble OR allowing them to prey upon the populace.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

 

[The T]

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.

Even IF he/she is your own.