Congress tries again to hand president a line-item veto
It’s not often that Congress voluntarily surrenders power, and even less common for both parties to agree to do so.
But that’s what will happen if the latest version of legislation granting the president line-item veto authority keeps inching forward, as members of both parties endorse the idea that the current system of checks and balances isn’t working well enough at slashing spending. Critics, meanwhile, say an ineffective Congress is simply passing the buck.
In November, the chairman and ranking member of the House Budget Committee — Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) — teamed up to offer the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011, a measure giving the White House the ability to demand a separate up-or-down vote on spending items the president especially dislikes.
The bill cleared the budget panel and is scheduled to receive a House Rules Committee hearing Tuesday, and it could reach the floor as soon as next week. One of several budget-reform proposals being advanced by Ryan, the line-item measure marks a rare case of cooperation between the Republican chairman and Van Hollen, who have spent most of the past 13 months squabbling over spending.
full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-tries-again-to-hand-president-a-line-item-veto/2012/01/30/gIQAi7ATdQ_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Is that a tinkling sound? Or a hummmmmming sound?
The U.S constitution gives a 2/3 majority Congress the power to override the Presidential veto.
So I don't see how a simple up or down vote conforms to the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority by Congress being necessary to override a veto. On the other hand, this Congress and this President don't seem to be constrained by the legalities imposed by the Constitution either.
- Of course they'll save the country a bunch of money on toilet paper.......
'Pork' often feeds the well-connected conservative voter base through contracts, but denies social programs, which they say their area can't have because they're fiscal conservatives. It is a source of income inequality in red states to keep the less advantaged living hand to mouth and unable to participate in the political process. Thus they stay in power there.
Conservatives claim to be for small government, but employ people to do what honestly should be called public functions through MIC contracts to private firms, etc. They took the money they fought Obama on to keep auto factories in their districts, then went home to claim credit for saving those jobs they voted against and were booed. Same with the stimulus money they fought Obama getting, but they got away with that canard for the most part. It's time to get honest about where the money comes from instead of wrapping it all in the flag like a curtain.
Just like the faith based funding, that some churches recieve who are trying to use to force the receipients to adhere to their way of thinking instead how the monies were designed to help. In drug diversion plans people have been forced through faith based organizations who insist that those who don't believe must still say that they do, or they are not eligible and have been sent to prison for not lying. This is thought coercion on a most intimate and private matter and is why some people are in other dire straits because they will not give up that last shred of human freedom.
Now we have healthcare vendors who take money from the public who may not think the same as they do, and discriminate on how it will be returned to the public. It's fine for them to think as they do, but when they take taxpayer money, it's dishonest to hold back on that money. It's a violation of the First Amendment to fund a religion and not a real social service.
I say push all things in the open and let a Democratic administration do what the GOP fears most, equal the playing field in their base. Nordquist has already announced they must impeach Obama in a second term for letting the tax break for millionaires expire. The funding for the Tea Party Revolution was only to stop that tax break from expiring, not all that hogwash they pulled in the lunatic fringe to create a voting block. They're having to come out into the open, no fancy rhetoric, just show me the money!
They can't make the case that coddling the Kochs is going to provide jobs now, they've only had their shills in Congress influence their base with pork. Let the American people decide where the money goes, not this crew up there. They won't censor themselves on their conflicts of interest with corporations. Anywhere else, those guys would be convicted of insider trading.
