• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 45.9%

  • No

    Votes: 17 45.9%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Total voters
    37
no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.

payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?
 
Thunder said:
no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a round-about way of wanting a line-item veto?


Thunder said:
payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?
Click to expand...
Somewhat different subject, but I agree that all bills should be limited to a single item. That would eliminate the need for a line-item veto, also.
 
radcen said:
Isn't that a round-about way of wanting a line-item veto?



Somewhat different subject, but I agree that all bills should be limited to a single item. That would eliminate the need for a line-item veto, also.
Click to expand...

no, but if bills were focused on one single issue, line-item vetoes would be less-necessary.
 
Many people, among them past Libertarian Presidential candidate Andre Marrou, believe that the line-item veto is already Constitutionally approved. It just hasn't been used/tested.
 
Split, just as our nation is...
I agree with the line item veto....I trust our President more than Congress; but this will not and cannot stay that way..
Probably ,every President since Washington has wanted this.
 
radcen said:
Should the President have "line-item veto" power?
Click to expand...

Yes. Say good-bye to pork barrel additions. It's all about accountability. The old adage, "The buck stops here," isn't true. President wants "X?" He's got to sign it even though the "Y" addition to it sucks wind. Enough. The old "bridge to nowhere?" Who do we blame? The guy who introduced it? How is he accountable to the country? His electoral base loves it. Both houses of Congress that passed it along with "whatever else?"

If the buck truly stops "here," let's give our President the power to make that real.
 
MaggieD said:
Yes. Say good-bye to pork barrel additions. It's all about accountability. The old adage, "The buck stops here," isn't true. President wants "X?" He's got to sign it even though the "Y" addition to it sucks wind. Enough. The old "bridge to nowhere?" Who do we blame? The guy who introduced it? How is he accountable to the country? His electoral base loves it. Both houses of Congress that passed it along with "whatever else?"

If the buck truly stops "here," let's give our President the power to make that real.
Click to expand...

A line item veto would not eliminate pork. It would limit pork from the other side. The pork from the presidents side would still be left in.
 
It gives the president the power to override congress and take away any chance at compromise when the houses are not of the same party as the executive. Yes, the veto can function in that way, but it's much more blunt and there is a cost to throwing out an entire bill. Picking and choosing elements of bills, even if I agree with whoever the president might be at the time, gives that person too much power.
 
Yes, the president should have the power of line item veto.

Let's see.. in this omnibus bill to support the troops is a totally unrelated proposal to build a bridge in Congressman Porkbill's district.. strike.

On the other hand, giving the president another power could upset the balance of power between the Congress and Executive Branch, so, Congress needs to have another power to balance it out.

How about the president be appointed by one house of Congress, and approved by the other? That way, we'll avoid the circus of a presidential election in which voters think they're electing some sort of absolute ruler who can actually keep those impossible campaign promises?
 
Redress said:
A line item veto would not eliminate pork. It would limit pork from the other side. The pork from the presidents side would still be left in.
Click to expand...

better to eliminate half he pork than no pork at all.
 
Redress said:
A line item veto would not eliminate pork. It would limit pork from the other side. The pork from the presidents side would still be left in.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But election year would put the blame where it belongs...on the President's desk. The bridge to nowhere could have cost the president his re-election.

Gina said:
It gives the president the power to override congress and take away any chance at compromise when the houses are not of the same party as the executive. Yes, the veto can function in that way, but it's much more blunt and there is a cost to throwing out an entire bill. Picking and choosing elements of bills, even if I agree with whoever the president might be at the time, gives that person too much power.
Click to expand...

What compromise is there on a bridge to nowhere? (I particularly like that example, as everybody gets it.) Look, it's not working as it stands. How about a trial period? Ha!
 
Dittohead not! said:
better to eliminate half he pork than no pork at all.
Click to expand...

You do not see the massive potential for abuse there? With one fell swoop, presidents could ensure that those on the other side do very little for their constituents. How do you think that would help their chances of getting re-elected.
 
MaggieD said:
Perhaps. But election year would put the blame where it belongs...on the President's desk. The bridge to nowhere could have cost the president his re-election.



What compromise is there on a bridge to nowhere? (I particularly like that example, as everybody gets it.) Look, it's not working as it stands. How about a trial period? Ha!
Click to expand...

Could have, but almost certainly wouldn't. How many people who voted for it got re-elected?
 
Redress said:
You do not see the massive potential for abuse there? With one fell swoop, presidents could ensure that those on the other side do very little for their constituents. How do you think that would help their chances of getting re-elected.
Click to expand...

The president couldn't write more pork into the bills he signed, only eliminate it. If he wanted to help out his party, which does seem to be the real goal of both parties just now, he's be more inclined to eliminate pork from the other party (whichever that one is). That's why the line item veto would add to the power of the executive branch, and have to be balanced by giving the Congress another power to keep the balance.
 
Redress said:
You do not see the massive potential for abuse there? With one fell swoop, presidents could ensure that those on the other side do very little for their constituents. How do you think that would help their chances of getting re-elected.
Click to expand...
And unlike the pork that could be eliminated, the tax burden would still be equally felt throughout all 50 states.

On the surface a line item veto seems like a wonderful thing. Perhaps it WOULD be if both parties were populated with representatives that were invested in the good of the country and not the good of the party.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The president couldn't write more pork into the bills he signed, only eliminate it. If he wanted to help out his party, which does seem to be the real goal of both parties just now, he's be more inclined to eliminate pork from the other party (whichever that one is). That's why the line item veto would add to the power of the executive branch, and have to be balanced by giving the Congress another power to keep the balance.
Click to expand...

The president does not need to be able to write more pork to screw the other party and play politics in a way that simply should not be done.
 
radcen said:
Somewhat different subject, but I agree that all bills should be limited to a single item. That would eliminate the need for a line-item veto, also.
Click to expand...
I agree that each bill should be for one single subject. Omnibus pork bills are a crock, in my opinion.

I wonder what would happen if a president just began vetoing any bill that was not on a single subject. Could that president institute an effective line-item veto?
 
There is a better solution than the Line Item Veto. It would make a huge difference if the federal powers and roles were reduced in the first place and those 'pork' projects were state and locally funded and mandated.
 
VanceMack said:
There is a better solution than the Line Item Veto. It would make a huge difference if the federal powers and roles were reduced in the first place and those 'pork' projects were state and locally funded and mandated.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but in order to reduce federal power and roles, we need to change legislation, no? Is there another way?
 
MaggieD said:
How about a trial period? Ha!
Click to expand...
You mean like a temporary tax cut? :2razz:

Anyway, regarding pork. One balancing factor, albeit a minor balancing factor, would be that the President is much more high-profile and easier to track, thus would be more prone to be held accountable for his veto choices. Theoretically, at least.
 
This would essentially give the President power to virtually draft legislation, as he can alter it however he sees fit. This would greatly increase the power of an office that I feel already has too much power. It essentially throws the power of Congress almost entirely toward the President, who would no longer have to compromise with other branches of government.
 
I vote yes, with the provision that there is a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
This would essentially give the President power to virtually draft legislation, as he can alter it however he sees fit. This would greatly increase the power of an office that I feel already has too much power. It essentially throws the power of Congress almost entirely toward the President, who would no longer have to compromise with other branches of government.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Not unless the President can add to the legislation. Taking away is limiting enough that congress would still be important.
 
Centinel said:
Totally agree, but in order to reduce federal power and roles, we need to change legislation, no? Is there another way?
Click to expand...
Of course the US Code would have to change...and do I think it will happen? No. Snowbells in hell have a better chance of surviving and thriving than responsible government. Cant blame it all on the government though...it starts with the people that put them there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom