Bush issues executive order

[AtomicCEO]

Now Bush is pushing Congress for a line-item veto.

 

Seriously... is anyone else concerned that the least popular president of our lifetime who is continually abusing the power that he does have, is also constantly pushing for more power for the executive branch?

 

Isn't congress supposed to keep the president in check? This is seriously un-American. Our country was specifically designed to keep the executive branch from having too much power.

 

Also... does anyone find it ironic that this congress of all congresses would think of passing a line-item veto rule to help curb pork and federal spending? I have a better idea on how to do it. Stop inserting pork into the bills, dumbasses! You've done it more than any congress in history!!

[thecerwin]

It's getting close to election season. Bush is getting back into conservatism for the benefit of the party.

 

The House bill, which passed 247-172, would let the president try to kill individual items contained in spending or tax bills that he otherwise signs into law. Congress would be required to vote on those specific items again. A simple majority in both the House and the Senate could override the president's objections.

 

So he can ask Congress to reevaluate individual items instead of killing the whole bill, whats the problem?

[Swiss Cheezhead]

It's getting close to election season. Bush is getting back into conservatism for the benefit of the party.

So he can ask Congress to reevaluate individual items instead of killing the whole bill, whats the problem?

 

 

Doesn't look like a problem to me. The legislative branch would keep "final say."

 

According to the SC, raising tax revenue does indeed qualify as public use. That's the problem. You and I recognize that use of eminent domain as being borderline criminal, but it is up to the states to regulate it properly. Here in Minnesota, cities are still going gangbusters grabbing land right left and center to pass to private developers.

 

The problem of eminent domain for tax raising purposes could be solved if the eminent domain authority was mandated to pay the current owner at least 1.75 times the market value for the land, plus expenses. Since they're going to make a boatload in extra taxes, this would be a small price to pay and everyone would be happy.

 

 

It kinda seems like a band-aid solution, but it makes sense.

 

I'm sure, in many situations, tax revenue is a legitimate benefit to communities, but it certainly doesn't always outweigh the extreme inconvenience to individuals. Paying those individuals well over the market value for their property probably would satisfy all parties involved.

 

Some might worry about the long-term effect on the local real-estate markets, but I believe things like that eventually find an appropriate balance.

[AtomicCEO]

So he can ask Congress to reevaluate individual items instead of killing the whole bill, whats the problem?

 

 

The problem is that there is an easier fix. We don't have to give the president more power to eliminate pork. Short-step it, and have congress just eliminate the frigging pork on their own.

[wiegie]

Apparently W doesn't know that the Supreme Court ruled the "line-item veto" as being unconstitutional back in 90's.

[wiegie]

The problem is that there is an easier fix. We don't have to give the president more power to eliminate pork. Short-step it, and have congress just eliminate the frigging pork on their own.

 

Or the president (ANY president) could just ball up and veto whatever pork-laden bill that came his way and explain specifically to the American people what parts of the bill were pork.

 

He could say "If a line-item veto were constitutional, I would delete these items. Since I cannot specifically delete these items on my own, I will send the bill back to Congress so that they can remove the wasteful spending provisions."

[Swiss Cheezhead]

Or the president (ANY president) could just ball up and veto whatever pork-laden bill that came his way and explain specifically to the American people what parts of the bill were pork.

 

He could say "If a line-item veto were constitutional, I would delete these items. Since I cannot specifically delete these items on my own, I will send the bill back to Congress so that they can remove the wasteful spending provisions."

 

 

Novel concept. Too bad politics are involved.

[rbmcdonald]

I still welcome the press release. It was a bad decision by the Supreme Court and needs to be corrected. Like Atomic and rbmcdonald have said, the executive order doesn't do much of anything. It is a good thing that the issue is being brought up. Now congress needs to react and make a good law.

 

 

I do not beleive that it was a bad decision by the Supreme court, I really prefer to leave it at the state level, if the people of that state do not like it then they need to adrress it at the state level. All things being equal, I prefer that the Federal government leave the decisions at the state level.

[rbmcdonald]

Now Bush is pushing Congress for a line-item veto.

 

Seriously... is anyone else concerned that the least popular president of our lifetime who is continually abusing the power that he does have, is also constantly pushing for more power for the executive branch?

 

Isn't congress supposed to keep the president in check? This is seriously un-American. Our country was specifically designed to keep the executive branch from having too much power.

 

Also... does anyone find it ironic that this congress of all congresses would think of passing a line-item veto rule to help curb pork and federal spending? I have a better idea on how to do it. Stop inserting pork into the bills, dumbasses! You've done it more than any congress in history!!

 

 

I like the line item veto. I like zero based budgeting. I like anything that helps promote the concept of it does not need to be spent, unless you can justify the need. Not sure what the Unconstitutional issues were before, but those will have to be addressed.

[Ursa Majoris]

Doesn't look like a problem to me. The legislative branch would keep "final say."

It kinda seems like a band-aid solution, but it makes sense.

 

I'm sure, in many situations, tax revenue is a legitimate benefit to communities, but it certainly doesn't always outweigh the extreme inconvenience to individuals. Paying those individuals well over the market value for their property probably would satisfy all parties involved.

 

Some might worry about the long-term effect on the local real-estate markets, but I believe things like that eventually find an appropriate balance.

 

One of the common factors in eminent domain cases is that, not content with taking the land in the first place, the confiscating authority always wants to short change the land owner as well, using the power they have to stiff the owner for under market price. At least this would resolve the monetary aspect. There should be no effect on real estate markets since only land earmarked for eminent domain would be affected.

[AtomicCEO]

I like the line item veto. I like zero based budgeting. I like anything that helps promote the concept of it does not need to be spent, unless you can justify the need. Not sure what the Unconstitutional issues were before, but those will have to be addressed.

 

 

I don't. The president has enough power already. Plus, as wiegie said, if congress and the president weren't already stroking each other off... pork wouldn't be a problem because Bush would just reject the whole bill and call congress out on it.

 

To assume that this would be used for good instead of bad means you're just not paying attention. They don't want to eliminate pork. This would be used to kill the parts that potentially hurt Bush's interests.

[Dr. Love]

Well.. my question was actually... if congress makes a law about eminent domain, and the courts uphold that law... what right does the president have to say, "Here's the new law". That's not his place in government. He's not king, yet. He has specific jobs, and making laws ain't one of them.

 

I don't remember you complaining about Clinton making laws.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/c-execorders.html

[rbmcdonald]

This would be used to kill the parts that potentially hurt Bush's interests.

 

 

Special Interests usually are looking for the Government to spend money, not unspend money. Also, politicians tend to want to exercise there power in the dark, line item vetoes would tend to take place in the light of day. Delay and Rostenkowski are good examples of that. Certainly a sitting president is more likely to use it against the opposition rather than against his party, but hey maybe one of these days we will elect a president that will grow some balls and develop some principles in his last term.

 

The result of the two major parties spending all of their time demonizing the opposition, is that neither party has to do anything to keep the support of their core constituencies, because anything is better than a devil, right?

[AtomicCEO]

The result of the two major parties spending all of their time demonizing the opposition, is that neither party has to do anything to keep the support of their core constituencies, because anything is better than a devil, right?

 

 

True.

 

I still think the opportunity for Bush or any president to abuse his powers is much greater with a line item veto.

 

To think that Bush would use it to eliminate pork is a pipe dream. Do you really think he is 1) concerned about the federal spending , or 2) worried about too much money going to republicans' pet interests?

[Beaumont]

A line item veto is a good idea. I am all for it (but reserve the right to criticize the admin for how it uses it).

 

This version is designed to circumvent the constitutionality issue by not eliminating the items objected to, but instead requiring them to go through a second vote for passage ...

 

Therefore, the at least somewhat defensible position that it does not allow the President to "make" legislation or usurp legislative powers (as opposed to the earlier version, that let him slice parts of bills) ...

[Dr. Love]

A line item veto is a good idea. I am all for it (but reserve the right to criticize the admin for how it uses it).

 

This version is designed to circumvent the constitutionality issue by not eliminating the items objected to, but instead requiring them to go through a second vote for passage ...

 

Therefore, the at least somewhat defensible position that it does not allow the President to "make" legislation or usurp legislative powers (as opposed to the earlier version, that let him slice parts of bills) ...

 

I'd much rather see a balanced budget amendment than a line item veto.

[wiegie]

I'd much rather see a balanced budget amendment than a line item veto.

I think forcing the government to balance the budget in any given year (so that this year's expenditures = this year's revenue) is way too constraining--but I think a present-value balanced budget makes a lot of sense and that legislatures should be held accountable and must be forced to explain why they have deviated from such a budget.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think forcing the government to balance the budget in any given year (so that this year's expenditures = this year's revenue) is way too constraining--but I think a present-value balanced budget makes a lot of sense and that legislatures should be held accountable and must be forced to explain why they have deviated from such a budget.

What about a balanced budget over a rolling four year period, so that the gubment could spend more if necessary when needed but would have three years to balance it? That's what pretty much any credit card owner does with a big expense (well, any responsible owner).

[Dr. Love]

I think forcing the government to balance the budget in any given year (so that this year's expenditures = this year's revenue) is way too constraining--but I think a present-value balanced budget makes a lot of sense and that legislatures should be held accountable and must be forced to explain why they have deviated from such a budget.

I don't understand the concept of a present-value budget, so I don't know if I'm for or against the concept. I realize that a balanced budget is constraining and limits flexibility; however, that's the entire point. In the last 30 years, legislatures have not had a consistently balanced budget by any measure. Politicians have shown zero restraint and zero responsibility in handling the national purse strings. Flexibility demands responsibility and good judgement, and those in power over my lifetime have not shown either of those two things. I realize the optimal thing to do is for the government to actually increase spending during an economic turndown to ease it and hopefully help to shorten it, but politicians don't have the good sense to know when to turn the spigot off.

 

My proposal for a balanced budget amendment would include a payment schedule for the national debt (must be gone in 50 years, or whatever the right number would be), the ability for a "hypermajority" (75%) vote in Congress to exceed the budget during peace time and the ability for a simple majority to exceed the budget during a time of war (defined by a Congressional declaration of war, not this "we're constantly at war with the terr'rists" crap that's going on now). Both of these scenarios would have defined payback periods.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Politicians have shown zero restraint and zero responsibility in handling the national purse strings.

 

[wiegie]

I realize the optimal thing to do is for the government to actually increase spending during an economic turndown to ease it and hopefully help to shorten it, but politicians don't have the good sense to know when to turn the spigot off.

 

I hear you (and this is pretty much what I teach it too--although I teach that it actually makes a lot of sense for politicians to keep the spigot on (or, alternatively, not increase taxes) if they think it will get them votes--which, unfortunately, it does.

 

As for the present value thing, it sort of works like a household's finances when, say, buying a house. The household can afford to incure a hugh amount of deficit-spending in one year, if it can be projected that the family will have the revenue in the future to pay back the debt. (of course, the family would not be allowed to keep buying additional houses each year in the future). So the government could, say, deficit spend by $1 trillion this year IF it could show how future revenue streams would be sufficient to allow the government to pay back this amount over some reasonable time-period.

 

I am becoming less and less a fan of discretionary fiscal policy to help moderate the business cycle (for the reasons you outlined above plus the fact that it takes Congress way too long to act to help out recessions anyway). I do think "rules-based" automatic stabilizers (like unemployment insurance and an increasing marginal tax rate schedule) very likely are useful in moderating the business cycle. These stabilizers might cause the budget to be unbalanced in a given year, but should give a balanced budget over a time frame of a couple of years.

[rbmcdonald]

Politicians have shown zero restraint and zero responsibility in handling the national purse strings.

 

 

 

 

I just blows my mind that total public debt has incresed 47% in six years, and nobody seems to care.

 

$8.3 Trillion

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm