Bush Backs $388 Bln Bill But Wants New (Line-Item) Veto Powers

[Khephra]

(Reuters) - President Bush on Friday backed the $388 billion price-tag of a bill to finance government programs this fiscal year, despite criticism that it was loaded up with pork-barrel projects.

"Obviously, there's going to be things in these big bills that I don't particularly care for," Bush told reporters near his Crawford, Texas ranch.

But he said: "The bill conforms to the budget that I worked out with the Congress ... the size of the bill is a number that we agreed to earlier this year. And I appreciate that because part of making sure we cut the deficit in half is to work together on the overall size of our spending bills."

snip...........

"The only way a president can affect that which is inside the bill, other than vetoing the entire bill, is to be able to pick out parts of a bill and express displeasure about it through a line-item veto. I hope the Congress will give me a line-item veto," Bush said.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6932230

[Sirveri]

1. OH GOD NO!!!!!!

FRICKING ARNIE GOT THAT HERE! GOD FORBID IF THAT DUMBASS BUSHIT JERKOFF GETS IT TOO!

[Ima]

2. When did AS get it?

That gives them wayyy to much power.

[Garbo 2004]

5. CA Gov's have had the line item veto for decades. n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

7. refering to prop 58 i believe.

it basically allows governor to strip funding for any project passed by legislature. essentially gives power of the purse to governor (yes, it very stupid). not a direct line item veto, but something far more powerful. basically legislature can waste their time saying and passing anything, governor can just say 'strip the funding' and that's it. atrocious prop it was. and the californians were sold this pill by saying 'prop 58 will prevent more wasteful bonds!'

i hate the proposition system here.

now a real line item veto for george bush? i pray for the sake of this country.

[gmoney]

3. Bush objected to funding for schools, medical research, roads...

He wanted to cut that crap out of the funding bill.

[Dickie Flatt]

4. HELL NO

The Dems better be ready to stop this bullshit. Line item veto is a horrible idea no matter who the president is.

[MatrixEscape]

6. Oh no ...

Another check-box to add to my tyranny progress list.

It is already too long and all the boxes are checked.

The Oz-head keeps inflating! How great and poweful can it get? The Emerald City is already a freakin' fortress and all the Munchkins are in Gitmo. The horse of a differnt color is the Minister Truth, (what's the color today?) and the Wizard is in charge of spinning the media. Sheesh!

Well, we do get to see if the concept about absolute power is true when it comes to corruption, ey? I always wondered about that.

[NuttyFluffers]

8. Glinda! Where are you when we need you!

i got my ruby slippers and everything!

[Mel]

9. forget it Bush

if Clinton can not have it neither can you ass wipe! I do not want to even hear one right winger cry about how Bush should have the line item veto. If they do which I'm sure they will as their hypocrisy knows no bounds we on the left better be in their faces throwing their words at them that I'm sure they spewed when Clinton wanted it!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto


Clinton disappointed; Opponents of veto call it a victory for the Constitution


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday, ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand that power to the president.


The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.


In his majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens upheld a lower court's decision, concluding "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."

[genieroze]

25. They only enfore laws when it doesn't benefit the dems or working people.

If it benefits pubs or the rich, who needs a law.

[American Tragedy]

10. Even my professor thinks that's disastrous

and he's the chair of the McConnell Center, and writes for the fucking National Review.

Maybe Bush will alienate them all.

[TankLV]

11. It has already been ruled unconstitutional when the repukes last passed it

thinking that Clinton would not get a 2nd term. He won, then all of a sudden, "Oh my god, what have we done?" when he proceeded to use it. It was promptly taken away.

Now that they're back in charge, I wonder how they can spin it this time?

First the phoney impeachment over sex - then they elect the groenator.
Then it was redistricting whenever they feel like it even tho it has never been done before more than every ten years.
Now they want to change the senate rules on filibustering when they so successfully used it to block some 300 Clinton appointments even tho they were stymied only about ten.
Now this.

Is there ANY abomination that they can do that they can get away with to destroy our country

[Ima]

12. I hope he doesn't get it.

If he does...we have had it.

[Deja Q]

13. And since when has dumbass* ever vetoed a spending bill?

This is a charade. A farrago of distortion and chicanery!

And you bet that the congress will give * everything he wants. From line item vetoes to approval on war to raspberry flavored crisco for those unmentionable times that Michael Powell would fine even FOX news for.

[nebula]

14. Pardon my ignorance

I understand it would allow Bush to veto parts of a bill he doesn't like, but why would it be a bad thing?

[sonicx]

16. well, i can tell you one thing...

If a line Bush doesn't like is attached to, say....a defense bill and Bush is forced to veto the whole thing, Democrats can say...

"He vetoed funding for our troops!!"

[ginnyinWI]

18. He'd veto the stuff that was good for America,

like anything favoring the middle class or the poor, and then he'd pass the stuff that was good for corporations and his war machine! Ugh.

[SemperEadem]

15. didnt' the repugs stop Clinton from getting the line item veto?

those same repugs should be outted if they dare to give it to **(?).

---that means questionably elected the second time--we know he was selected the first time---

[Viking12]

17. No, SCOTUS did

On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the line-item veto law, declaring it unconstitutional. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion).

[LynnTheDem]

19. That's funny, bush wanting the same thing CLINTON wanted.

BUSH the BIG SPENDING, BIG GOVERNMENT, TAX-RAISING (only for poor & middle class) BLEEDING HEART rightwingnut.

I'm so looking forward to the day the majority of rightwingnuts wake up and realize what a conned & duped a pack of rubes they've been...and by a moran so stupid & ignorant. :)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

22. And did you thank god for bush today?

Just wondering.

[Stand and Fight]

20. The Little Jerk-off

Still thinks that he is the dammed governor of Texas! Stinky lil' shit. Well pallie, that shit may fly in Texas, but... What a minute! What am I saying? He has a freaking mandate, a loaded Congress, and the Supreme Court on his side. It's entirely possible that he'll get his line-item veto. The consolidation of power is always evident in an emerging tyrant. More grave implications -- especially given the fact that the dammed USA Patriot Act is still law.

[dansolo]

23. I've got a better idea

Make every legislator accountable for any line written into legislation. There would probably be a lot less pork (an other nasty secret little provisions) if they weren't able to sneak things in anonymously.

[lakeguy]

24. YES! That would be great...

some REAL accountability. EVERY part of every piece of legislation muc have an author and that author should be know to all!