GOP pushes line-item veto...(Sen. Allen trying to give Bush more power)

[ProSense]

Posted on Sun, Feb. 19, 2006

GOP pushes line-item veto as way to curb spending

BY JUDY HOLLAND
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON - Republicans trying to escape a reputation as big-spending budget-busters are pushing for a line-item veto that would transfer huge political power to the White House.

Snip...

Present law requires a president to veto the entire spending bill if he wants to eliminate such earmarks.

Advocates of the line-item are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would empower a president to knock out individual earmarks in the wake of recent controversies over what became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" linking a small Alaska town with a sparsely populated island, along with other favorite pork-barrel projects of lawmakers -- including an indoor rain forest in Iowa, a museum parking lot in Nebraska, a sculpture park in Seattle and an animal shelter in Rhode Island.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., a potential 2008 presidential candidate and sponsor of the line-item veto amendment, says it is gaining momentum amid concern over wasteful spending. The Bush administration supports the idea.

more...

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/13911228.htm?source=rss&channel=duluthsuperior_nation

Isn't this Bush's colossal mess? Didn't he cut everything that doesn't reward cronies? Let him veto the entire thing if he's isn't happy with it. Send it back to Congress so that it can be fixed. He shouldn't be given tinker-with-it power so that he can further screw Americans. Who knows what he'll cut out.

[OneBlueSky]

1. wasn't that declared unconstitutional? . . .

or is my memory not all it used to be? . . .

[Justitia]

4. Yup, during the Clinton admin. Would need a constitutional amendment.

But, w/this group in charge of ALL branches of gov't - who knows?

Nowadays, I think anything could be done.

How eager they are to be slaves.

[TheVirginian]

26. Allen is pushing for an amendment. n/t

[Justitia]

2. GOP dictionary: "wasteful spending" = non-military or non-pork spending

[Missy M]

3. Talk about creating partisan politics, this would assure...

that any party in power would get only what they want in any particular spending bill. Very wrong!!!!!

[madmom]

5. why do they need line item veto...they control everything!

[Double T]

6. The American people need to line item veto the bush administration

The most arrogant and corrupt dictatorship in the world

[onenote]

7. adopted during Clinton presidency and struck down by SCOTUS

A law giving the president line item veto authority was enacted in 1996 and used by Bill Clinton several times before being invalidated by the courts. The SCOTUS majority that struck down the law consisted of Stevens (who authored the opinion), Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy. Scalia and O'Connor concurred in part and dissented in part and Breyer dissented.

onenote

[JackintheGreen]

8. Who knows what he'll cut out?

Let me take a stab at it:

capital improvements (eg. highways, etc) spending to blue states
healthcare expenditures for the disadvantaged
school funding for the inner cities, notwithstanding NCLB
veteran benefits


But luckily the loyal patriots of Assnowhere, Idaho (pop. 322) will get a new HazMat first response truck, just in case the World's Largest Waste of Public Monies gets attacked with a dirty bomb.

I apologize to all Idaho DUers. All 12 of them.

[Justitia]

12. LOL! too funny - eom

[chefgirl]

9. Curb spending, my ass!

This is nothing more than a way for the little idiot to craft law any way he chooses.

This issue was one of the things I was adamantly opposed to, in the Clinton administration, for exactly that reason. If I didnt trust Clinton with 'line item veto' power, I sure as hell wouldn't trust the simian in chief with that same power.

If he gets line item veto power, it truly is all over, folks. Its just a convenient little short cut to his 'unitary executive' wet dream.

-chef-

[Canuckistanian]

10. Stop attaching "riders" and "attachments" to bills!

This practice has gone way beyond control. They can slip in any odious provision into any bill and if anyone votes against it for that reason, they're a traitor in some way.

When will anyone address the REAL elephant in the romm?

[On the Road]

16. Yes, But How Would You Do That?

How would you write a law prohibiting riders without prohibiting amendments or other provisions? Maybe there's a way to do it, but that's pretty much a prerequisite.

[Canuckistanian]

18. God knows

But it seems to be a well-entrenched "tradition". Maybe it's Congress that needs the line item veto.

You could force a vote on every point that's not related to the Bill's original title and intent.

That could be a rule change that wouldn't need a constitutional amendment.

[MH1]

19. Here's an idea. Require "study time" based on the length of the bill

or amendment. i.e. a bill cannot be voted on until it has been published (to both parties, and the public) for review for a length of time equivalent to (x times the number of pages) session days. I'm not sure what x would be. Off the cuff I like 1 day for every 10 pages. That means a 3000 page bill would require 300 session days for review and therefore would be impossible.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Virginian]

11. Of course Allen wants to give Bush more power.

He expects to have that office turned over to him in 2008, and he would like to have that power for himself.

Lord, Please don't let that idiot, Allen, win his Senate seat next November. Virginia has a mixture of election methods we are not all Diebold. We can stop him before he goes national if we really try.

DEFEAT ALLEN '06! Then we won't have to worry about him in '08.

[LynneSin]

13. This is actually a very good thing

Which I rarely say about anything a republican does and I haven't read the entirity of the bill to see if there are any hidden suprises in there.

However, Line-Item Veto is long overdue because there is too much unneeded crap in these bills and the president (if we actually had a real president) should have the right to pull that crap out of a bill but yet be able to sign the bill.

Bush might be boondocking in the white house right now, but in 2008 we'll have a democrat in there and we would be able to pull out shit like drilling in ANWR and other little tidbits buried into bills that politicians hope to pull something over on us.

[Hosnon]

14. I disagree...I see the line-item veto as the President "legislating." He

gets a bill that has gone through the process in both houses...he can't change the bill once that process is complete.

[MH1]

20. But why can't the legislature then vote on that single provision,

on its own merits?

I've always favored line-item veto, myself. But also see my post upthread about limiting the length of bills. I'm not sure what is the best way to control this beast. There may be valid arguments against line-item veto, but I haven't seen any (yet) that I buy.

[ProSense]

23. There is a better way.

A line item veto wouldn't stop pork, it would give the president and his party the opportunity to kill anything they were against.

Stop the influence of lobbyist in electing members of Congress and that would curb the amount of lobbyist-influenced pork in bills. Members of Congress are always going to fight for funding for their home state, but the way it is now the home state projects they fight for are the ones defined by lobbyist.

Reform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2445744&mesg_id=2445744

[On the Road]

15. I Would Agree *IF* the Statute Were Written

to specifically allow vetos of earmarks (eg,Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere), but not for general spending programs (eg, food stamps). I don't know if that's possible.

[ProSense]

24. That's exactly the problem. n/t

[MH1]

21. Hey, we agree on something!

:hi:

:toast:

[kwolf68]

17. Allen

He probably could care less if Dumbya gets this extra power, but is thinking ahead to 2008 where he presumably is a frontrunner for the top spot on the Rethug ticket.

[Nutmegger]

22. I can't stand Allen

He has to be one of the worst IMHO. He could care less...:eyes:

[LibDemAlways]

25. Allen is a fraud.

I went to high school with him and saw firsthand what an asshole he is. He was raised in Southern California where his hobby was racism. I am doing what I can to get the word out. He's worse than pond scum.

[TheVirginian]

27. Text of the Amendment:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize the President to reduce or disapprove any appropriation in any bill presented by Congress. (Introduced in Senate)

SJ 25 IS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize the President to reduce or disapprove any appropriation in any bill presented by Congress.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 27, 2005
Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize the President to reduce or disapprove any appropriation in any bill presented by Congress.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. The President may reduce or disapprove any appropriation in any bill, order, resolution, or vote, which is presented to the President under section 7 of Article I.

`SECTION 2. Any legislation that the President approves and signs, after being amended pursuant to section 1, shall become law as so modified.

`The President shall return those portions of the legislation that contain reduced or disapproved appropriations with objections to the House where such legislation originated.

`Congress may separately consider any reduced or disapproved appropriations in the manner prescribed under section 7 of Article I for bills disapproved by the President.

`SECTION 3. This article shall take effect on the first day of the first session of Congress beginning after the date of ratification.'.

[TheVirginian]

28. Follow-up

It looks as if this would only be for appropriations.