Is there any way Obama can take pork projects out of GOP districts

[WI_DEM]

and put them in Democratic districts? I mean take the $$ and put them in democratic districts and start playing hard ball with these SOB's!? They are the ones crying that we can't pay one red cent for anything in this country so why should they get road, sewer, bridge repairs in their districts? Put the $ in Democratic districts.

Yes, I'm frustrated by the GOP and mad!

[krispos42]

1. "Money Where Your Mouth Is" rules

Every person in the US (except District residents) are represented by 3 congresscritters, 2 senators and one representative.

In my view, if you (a congresscritter) vote against a spending bill, the money the bill appropriates to your district or state should be cut by ⅓. So if you live in a district where both of your senators as well as your rep voted against a bill, but it still passed and became law, then your district gets $0.


Obviously, the execution wouldn't be that simple... but maybe it should.


"Hey, soldiers at Fort Hood. One of the Texas senators voted against the defense budget because there's funding for contraceptives. You just lost a third of your pay. Have fun!"

[tularetom]

2. Remember the bush "signing statements"?

No reason he couldn't use such a device to simply slice off all the red state pork and add the money to projects in friendlier districts.

Must be legal, bush did it all the time and nothing happened.

[former9thward]

8. Signing statements have been used by every President since Jefferson.

Obama does them also. They have no legal effect.

[frazzled]

3. There is no line-item veto

So I think the answer is no.

And signing statements don't work either. He can say he's not going to execute a certain law in the exact way it was written, or parts of a law, but he doesn't really have the pursestrings to hold back disbursements that were voted by Congress. Or if he tried that, he'd be (rightly) skewered.

[LiberalFighter]

4. How will the Democrats or others that don't support Republicans

feel when important funding is kept from the district for that reason?

There are also elected Democrats in those districts that will suffer if they lose funding. We are dealing with a double-edge sword when considering this.

It should be finesse a bit by providing projects within the red districts when it involves Democratic mayors or other elected power players. Making sure that the Republican Congressman receives as little positive PR in connection with the project.

[Llewlladdwr]

5. Would you really want there to be?

What would stop a Republican President from doing the same to blue districts?

[saras]

9. They do already. That's the point.

[Llewlladdwr]

10. Could you provide documentation of such an instance? NT

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. No. Congress controls the purse strings, unfortunately.

[Wait Wut]

7. That would be horrible.

Instead, we need to make sure the Dems get the credit for jobs created in those red districts DESPITE GOP obstruction.

Put a Democratic face on job creation and tear down their Reps. for hypocrisy and lack of intelligence.

[Stoic]

11. Hahaha, that wouldn't be bipartisan.

If he did something like that the Republicans might be mean to him.