Line item veto

[Ecofarm]

I do not approve of a line item veto at the federal level. Romney says it works at lower levels, but at the presidential level - it is very very bad.

Very very bad.

It allows the president to veto parts of a bill.

It is usually argued for within the context of an appropriations bill, where the president would (non-partisanly, of course) veto all the pork.

In reality, I fear:

The president vetos all of the opposing party's measures, and signs all of their party's measures.

Even if Romney does not become president, this will be a serious subject for our generation. Clinton gave himself a line item veto and Julie took it to the supreme court, who ruled it was unconstitutional. Of course, the constitution can be amended.

So, should we have it? At what levels? Do you think it can work? Would you support it for the president? Will you support it for Hillary, if she wins?

Do you know if your state has one?

 

[Masquerouge]

All I know is that pork and riders are disgraces to the US democracy.

I agree with you, however, that a line veto would be used in a partisan way.

Is it technically possible to forbid the inclusion of something completely unrelated into a bill that's about to be voted, or is there some mechanism that prevents that?

 

[Phlegmak]

How could Clinton give himself a new power? That's not possible. And line item vetoes would be great.

 

[Elrohir]

A line item veto is one of those things that are great when your guy is in charge, but disastrous when the other guy is. I can see advantages to it, but disadvantages as well - perhaps with some necessary limitations on it?

As an interesting side note, the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War had a line item veto. Their Constitution was rather....interesting. Much more pro-states rights than the regular federal Constitution, as you might expect.

 

[Ecofarm]

How could Clinton give himself a new power? That's not possible. And line item vetoes would be great.

Ok, the '96 congress gave it to him, at his request.

 

[.Shane.]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the line item veto, but am unsure the best alternative to remove pork.

 

[Elrohir]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the line item veto, but am unsure the best alternative to remove pork.

I suggest setting mandatory levels of allowed spending, and then slowly roasting the budget committee one at a time over an open fire until they figure out a budget that works within those limits.

 

[downtown]

I'm going to agree with Ecofarm here. The capacity for abuse outwieghs the benefits of "pork cutting". I'll make a longer post on the subject later, when im at my own computer

 

[Godwynn]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the line item veto, but am unsure the best alternative to remove pork.

Agreed.

I'm going to agree with Ecofarm here. The capacity for abuse outwieghs the benefits of "pork cutting".

And agreed.

I would rather live with the pork than have some people completely shafted for what could be essential needs.

 

[Masquerouge]

So there's no way to make pork illegal?

 

[Bill3000]

So there's no way to make pork illegal?

Perhaps some sort of requirement for a bill to stick to a particular subject?

 

[Godwynn]

So there's no way to make pork illegal?

It would be very difficult to define what is, and isn't pork. To the elected officials, every dollar that his or her district receives is a necessity. To those outside looking in think it is not and vice versa.

 

[Ecofarm]

An appropriations bill should stick to what subject?

 

[Masquerouge]

It would be very difficult to define what is, and isn't pork. To the elected officials, every dollar that his or her district receives is a necessity. To those outside looking in think it is not and vice versa.

What I have in mind is:

Perhaps some sort of requirement for a bill to stick to a particular subject?

An appropriations bill is should stick to what subject?

That's what I asked in post 2, and I was also wondering if there were any technicalities or specificities that would make this impossible, because it seems too obvious to not have been thought of before...

 

[Godwynn]

That's what I asked in post 2, and I was also wondering if there were any technicalities or specificities that would make this impossible, because it seems too obvious to not have been thought of before...

That would be too easy and it is the United States government we are talking about. I assume a very large majority of Congress approves of pork, even those who promote fiscal conservatism! A representatives constituents view how much cash he or she can bring home as a way to judge their abilities in office.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Perhaps some sort of requirement for a bill to stick to a particular subject?

You would have endless squabbles about the definition of what is and is not part of that particular subject.

 

[Bill3000]

You would have endless squabbles about the definition of what is and is not part of that particular subject.

Well, I knew from the start that such a suggestion would be too easy to work.

 

[.Shane.]

So there's no way to make pork illegal?

label pigs as enemy combatants?




I know, that joke sucked.

 

[Ecofarm]

So there's no way to make pork illegal?

Don't support porkers. Examine your congressman's sponsorship. Vote accordingly.

Back to something that might be specifically the power an individual: line item veto.

There's nothing besides the pork argument? No side of veggies, salad, soup, desert?

*Sigh*

How is this not political suicide for Romney? It's like the Dean Scream.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I do not approve of a line item veto at the federal level. Romney says it works at lower levels, but at the presidential level - it is very very bad.

(1). When Romney was governor, he vetoed a ton of the stuff that came across his desk; much of that was overturned anyway.

(2). I do approve of a line-item veto. I do see the potential for abuse (I wouldn't want it in Kucinich's hands!), but I also think that if the opposition party knew all of its pet projects would be vetoed by the president, perhaps they wouldn't be so happy to vote to approve bills earmarked for the party in power.

Term limits for Congress might be a plus in this case.

As an interesting side note, the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War had a line item veto. Their Constitution was rather....interesting. Much more pro-states rights than the regular federal Constitution, as you might expect.

The CSA Constitution was basically the same as the USA's, except the president had a single six-year term, the Bill of Rights was included in the body, the writ of habeas corpus was irrevocable, and slavery was made legal.

Don't support porkers. Examine your congressman's sponsorship. Vote accordingly.

Think about this one; if 434 Congressman are voting pork, and it's your tax money they're spending, wouldn't you prefer some of your money came back to your district? If anyone is getting pork, I'd like to make sure my Congressman is bringing home more of it than anyone else's!

How is this not political suicide for Romney?

(1). It's one of those phrases that conservatives like to throw around, so it's good.

(2). He did a good job with the Mass. budget; that's more than pretty much any other candidate can say.