Ecofarm
Deity
And you wonder why the politicians are corrupt?
I've thought about that one. And just because Johnny jumps off the bridge doesn't mean I must.
Line item veto
- Thread starter Ecofarm
- Start date
And you wonder why the politicians are corrupt?
I've thought about that one. And just because Johnny jumps off the bridge doesn't mean I must.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Merely pointing out why it doesn't work to examine your Congressman's record and vote accordingly.
Shadylookin
master debater
the thing is everyone loves pork the problem is when the other 434 districts use pork is when people complain, but they don't vote for those districts congressmen. It's essentially a tragedy of the commons scenario.
I remember reading something to the effect of "democracy only works until the people realize they can vote for the government to give them money"
I remember reading something to the effect of "democracy only works until the people realize they can vote for the government to give them money"
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Ah, I didn't see this extra line a few minutes ago...
Your example is ridiculous. I think it's nice that you are one of the few people who will turn down a representative who gives you free crap you've already paid for. But jumping off a bridge is a poor example.
Better example:
You attend a large university. One day, there is "free" ice cream for students at the student center. This ice cream comes from funds which every student pays at the beginning of the year. Everyone else is getting ice cream. Even though you'd prefer the money not be spent on ice cream, wouldn't you still go get your cone of cookies and cream with jimmies?
As long as somebody's getting ice cream which my money is paying for, I want some, too.
Until we can find a way so that nobody gets "free" ice cream.
Ecofarm
Deity
Bad example. I don't take milk. If it was beer I might have an ethical dilemma. There may be no free lunch; yet, the best beer is free beer.
Seriously: assuming the event was approved by the governing bodies, I had my chance to argue against it and gather majority support against it.
Your presentation of the situation implies that one is excluded from the process of such an event occuring. I don't think some dictator decided to spend my money this way. Is student government a dictatorship? Commies never approve such bourgeoisie luxuries. And it couldn't possibly be fascist, since only 20% of the uni is conservative... Have extremist greens won? Is it Ben and Jerry's?
Seriously: assuming the event was approved by the governing bodies, I had my chance to argue against it and gather majority support against it.
Your presentation of the situation implies that one is excluded from the process of such an event occuring. I don't think some dictator decided to spend my money this way. Is student government a dictatorship? Commies never approve such bourgeoisie luxuries. And it couldn't possibly be fascist, since only 20% of the uni is conservative... Have extremist greens won? Is it Ben and Jerry's?
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
No more so than the American Congress.
If we were to have a line item veto, perhaps a weak one should be considered. Those lines that are vetoed are sent back to Congress and only needs a simple majority to override the president's veto. Though that could scrap provisions that were given as part of a deal to pass the whole bill...but at least it'd take some of the bite out of it, unless the line item veto already had such a provision.
But...yeah, it's hard to trust that it'll work well.
But...yeah, it's hard to trust that it'll work well.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
It would cripple bipartisan compromises, and thus increase factionalism in government.
New Mexico has line item veto for the Governor, and it works pretty well. I think it would improve the Federal government.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Much as I can't imagine US politics becoming any more polarised, I think this is true.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Its inevitable whenever a line item veto is granted, because any compromise can instantly be negated by the president, while still granting one party what they want. So theres no point in reaching a consensus at all.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
The more you think about it the more absurd it becomes. The President's party could grant major concessions, only for the President to veto the concessions and pass the rest of the bill, totally screwing the opposition in the process.
An abusive President could create all sorts of absurd situations by partially vetoing bills in such a way that related clauses are ripped apart, granting powers but scrapping safeguards, awarding funds but removing responsibilities, approving trial programmes but skipping time limits.
How can such a power be defined without giving Presidents the power to de-facto legislate by carving out Frankenstein laws from the bills Congress send them? As an example, would this have allowed President Bush to have passed the Patriot Act without any of its safeguards?
IIRC, line-item veto power was reserved for appropriations bills. To that extent, I'd almost trade it for the current flurry of signing statements.
killercane
Deity
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
I like the idea of line-item veto in theory but, like others, I don't want to make the president even more powerful. Of course if the president was given line-item veto and stripped of other powers the position was never supposed to have to begin with, I would be happy.
Similar threads
