- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Should the President have "line-item veto" power?
Isn't that a round-about way of wanting a line-item veto?no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.
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.payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?
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.
Should the President have "line-item veto" power?
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.
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.
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.
better to eliminate half he pork than no pork at all.
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!
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.
And unlike the pork that could be eliminated, the tax burden would still be equally felt throughout all 50 states.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.
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.
I agree that each bill should be for one single subject. Omnibus pork bills are a crock, in my opinion.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.
Totally agree, but in order to reduce federal power and roles, we need to change legislation, no? Is there another way?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.
You mean like a temporary tax cut? :2razz:How about a trial period? Ha!
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.
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.Totally agree, but in order to reduce federal power and roles, we need to change legislation, no? Is there another way?