February 02, 2011
– Comments (11)
Is anyone against it and why?
I always thought it was a good idea but apparently it's been ruled unconstitutional.
Yes, and I can see how it is a violation of the presentment clause of the constitution, but let's assume it was passed by amendment to that clause, how do other's feel about it?
I think its dangerous...
For one thing it represents further encroachment of the executive branch on the legislative. This blurrin of the lines not only threatens the balance of power, but also reduces accountability in both.
And, perhaps more importantly, it will make for ineffective legislation....
Case in point: California
California's ballot iniative process lets people vote for all the "popular" stuff (spending XX Billion on the flavour dujour) without having to account for the not-so-popular stuff (figuring out how to pay for it within the context of the larger budgeting process).
I believe the line-item veto will have the same effect... Proponents might argue it would be a good way to eliminate pork from bills, but I tend to think it will have the net inverse effect.
I'm thinking that it would lesson that effect because everyone knows in this case who to point the finger at. If the President doesn't scratch it, then he must be for it.
My opinion is that the pork gets passed along because people don't know who is resonsible for it. When it gets passed with the line item veto, the President is responsible for it.
My greater fear was a President claiming to pass a bill after he eliminated everthing that was the purpose of the bill, but I'm thinking that the legislature would be vocal enough to squash that.
Anyway people, please add more input.
The problem with the U.S. government's budget is not the pork spending, or the unpopular spending, but the popular spending.
So Flea do you think that this would make popular spending easier?
Allowing the president to cut the pork sounds great, but is an unlikely outcome. It is much more likely that this will be used to upset the balance of power.
Imagine a compromise bill with big tax increases and big spending cuts, then Obama vetoes the spending cuts.
Or imagine a compromise with offseting big tax cuts and increases, and big spending increases and cuts, then the republican president vetoes all the tax and spending increases.
The line item veto would be a vast shift in power from congress to the executive branch.
This is pretty basic, but I felt that anything that cuts something from the budget was something I was in favour of.
I am against it. Too much power to the President.
Plus I think it is cowardly on the part of Congress, who should be obligated to "line item legislation" delivered to the Presidents desk. That way we'd know where everybody stands.
In addition I would like to be able to allocate my tax dollar as I would like it to be spent. That way you could spend all your taxes on the Constitutionally mandated "provide for the common defense" and I could see mine spent on "promote the general welfare".
Yeah, I'm kinda nervous about it.
Congress could pass a bill saying, for example, "We'll raise the debt ceiling but only if you balance the budget" and the President could then just cross out the annoying little "balance the budget" part.
I can see how it might have worked a long time ago, but these days bills are so long and full of legalese that the President, with the right cross-outs, basically gets everything he wants and nothing he doesn't. I used to be for it, but I think the executive branch ALREADY has more power then it was ever meant to, and this would just increase it by a lot.
I wish I could get the line item veto. on my tax forms as well.