House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto

Kal'Stang said:

This is true. But I am an optimist and I still hold out hope for a President that actually gives a damn about our country instead of him/herself.

Click to expand...

I believe that if you give elected officials an inch the they will try to take a mile(63,360 inches). If both sides were actually serious about cutting pork spending the president would veto every bill that had pork in it and tell them to write another bill without any pork, they would pass a one subject at a time bill, they would make the person who put in the pork get right out front of everyone on C-span and explain why the **** why this bill needs that pork spending. Elected officials have had decades to do something on the matter of pork spending and unrelated spending.There is no reason to believe that a line item veto would be any different. The only thing giving the president a line item veto power would do is basically neuter all opposition. Its like handing a can full of gas and handful of matches to a arsonist and expecting him to put out the fire.

soccerboy22 said:

This is every president's wetdream though.

Click to expand...

Clinton might have briefly had the line item veto, but it wasn't his wet dream.

jamesrage said:

The only thing a line item veto will is grant the president the power to veto things he doesn't want and keep the things he does want. This does not in any shape or form mean the president will cut any pork.All it means is that if a president is a democrat then anything in the bill that republicans want will be vetoed and if the president is a republican then that means anything the democrats want will be vetoed. There are other ways to cut pork.Like one subject at a time law.

Click to expand...

Towit: Riders and amendments to appropriations bills.

I get so tired of Congressmen from both chambers on either side of the political divide attaching BS to bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill. One recent example was the bill over the payroll tax cuts at the end of last year that got House Republicans in such a pickle. The only reason the bill ran into a stumbling block was somebody in their infinite wisdom just had to attach the KeystoneXL pipeline provision to it.

Frankly, I was glad when members of Congress finally pressured one another to do away with earmarks because congressmen started being called out for their wreckless spending. You can't continue to claim that the deficit is too big while also stuffing bills and padding the budget with more and more wasteful spending while also blaming others for the nation's debt and deficit problems.

End riders and only approve amendments that are germane to the proposed bill and you never need a line item veto - as far as adding more pork to bills are concerned.

jamesrage said:

I believe that if you give elected officials an inch the they will try to take a mile(63,360 inches). If both sides were actually serious about cutting pork spending the president would veto every bill that had pork in it and tell them to write another bill without any pork, they would pass a one subject at a time bill, they would make the person who put in the pork get right out front of everyone on C-span and explain why the **** why this bill needs that pork spending. Elected officials have had decades to do something on the matter of pork spending and unrelated spending.There is no reason to believe that a line item veto would be any different. The only thing giving the president a line item veto power would do is basically neuter all opposition. Its like handing a can full of gas and handful of matches to a arsonist and expecting him to put out the fire.

Click to expand...

Totally agree here.

Call out the congressman who put the "pork" in the bill and make him explain to the public why such spending was necessary, i.e., "Why, Mr. Congressman, did you put appropriations for airport runway repairs in a bill that deals with education reform?" What's he going to say? That pilots in training need good runways to test how to take off land planes?

Objective Voice said:

Totally agree here.

Call out the congressman who put the "pork" in the bill and make him explain to the public why such spending was necessary, i.e., "Why, Mr. Congressman, did you put appropriations for airport runway repairs in a bill that deals with education reform?" What's he going to say? That pilots in training need good runways to test how to take off land planes?

Click to expand...

That's why I like that idea. If they can be publicly shamed then they most likely will avoid sticking pork into bills.This is one of the reasons we know they are not serious about getting rid of pork.If they were serious then would call out these guys when they add **** like this.

jamesrage said:

That's why I like that idea. If they can be publicly shamed then they most likely will avoid sticking pork into bills.This is one of the reasons we know they are not serious about getting rid of pork.If they were serious then would call out these guys when they add **** like this.

Click to expand...

See folks, (Moderate) Democrats and Conservative (Republicans) can agree on some things.

Navy Pride said:

The dems had both houses and the presidency for 2 years. Why didn't they get anything done then except a whole bunch of spending that has not been paid for.

Click to expand...

Independents are not Democrats, and the Democrats aren't this radical leftist marxist socialist group you picture them to be. Quite a few Democrats are too conservative for some of the liberal goals. (or are just in the pockets of whatever business happens to oppose the bill in question) The end result is that the Democrats never had 60 votes for anything substantial, and since the GOP is willing to filibuster absolutely everything, 60 votes are required to pass things in the Senate instead of 51.

edit: Actually Kennedy was replaced in September so nevermind that part. In any case, calling that a supermajority is a bit of a stretch since two of the votes are independents and Lieberman endorsed a Republican in 2008.

soccerboy22 said:

They should just give it to him. If they don't like what he is cutting then just vote no on the second pass and it won't happen. Although, I am not sure this goes around the Supreme Court ruling from 98.

Click to expand...

I actually think this would get around the ruling because in essense in passing a budget with the President's revisions (line item vetoes), the Congress is literally passing a brand new bill that the president could simply sign and it becomes law...

danarhea said:

That won't be going anywhere. Congress gave Clinton the line item veto and SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

As it requires a further vote by Congress, I believe it would pass Constitutional muster providing the Senate passes it...

MaggieD said:

I think it works:



If this happens, IMO it will be Obama's greatest accomplishment.

Click to expand...

I agree since it will be a congressional accomplishment, and he can take credit; since he hasn't done much else while President.