Bi-partisan support for Bush's line item veto

[Rose Siding]

snip>
Though members of Congress are typically reluctant to cede too much power over spending to the executive branch, several lawmakers gave initial expressions of support, including House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

"It's no secret that President Bush and I don't agree on much," Mr. Kerry said, "but I fully support giving him the line-item veto."

But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, had an opposite view, calling the line-item veto "old hat."

"I don't think this Congress is ready for line-item veto," Mr. Reid said, adding, "I just think it's an effort by President Bush to divert attention from real issues this country has."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/politics/07spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Clinton wanted this, but I have an image of bush running down the budget bill with his crayon and striking out every single rare, hard-won, Democratic spending item. The concept looks even more unconstitutional from this side of the aisle.

[mom cat]

1. I think that Kerry blew it on this one!

[wisteria]

6. Kerry is calling his bluff. Bush will not want to veto any pork in this

budget because it is an election year and the Republicans running this year can go home and talk about what they have done for their state. Remember the bridge that went nowhere? Oh, and there really isn't much of any Dem things in this budget, it's all Republican pork for the most part. I think Reid doesn't get it. He is to wrapped up in this election and has blinders on. Allowing Bush this veto power will put him on the spot and he will have to cut the pork out.

[mom cat]

10. I see your point, but I am concerned that putting Bush on the spot will

not accomplish anything. He has been on the spot for years but the corporate media make sure that nothing sticks.
If this goes through and a Democratic House and/or Senate are elected then any budget that they pass will be subject to a line item veto, thus nullifying any election gains. The administration has already seized unprecedented power. Why would any Democrat want to hand him more? In the hopes that Bush will be revealed for protecting the fat? When is the media going to do that? There has been more than enough revealed already for Bush/Cheney to be taken down. Don't give him an AK47 in the hopes that he shoots himself in the foot with it.
Congress should be reclaiming its power, not giving it away.

[dusty64]

15. Sure he will.

Any Dems that manage to get anything for their districts, ALL repuke pork will pass.... WTF are they thinking, more power for our regime?

[LynneSin]

16. I think this is a damn smart move on Kerry's behalf

and when we get the White House back in 2008 we'll be able to use this against republicans and clean up some of these mammoth bills with all sorts of pork shoved into them

[rwheeler31]

2. This would be great,.

I would love to see how this works out, but you know it's going nowhere.

[Rose Siding]

8. I don't understand. How can any new power for this exective be great?

Do you trust that bush wouldn't use this to screw the middle and lower classes?

[0007]

19. I think your right!

[Sawkrates]

3. It is odd that W would ask for it...

When he hasn't vetoed a single bill in the whole of his presidency.

In general I support the line item veto, though the fact that W has touched the thing makes makes me skeptical.

[FloridaPat]

5. He just ignores the laws he doesn't like and makes executive

laws for the stuff that doesn't get passed. Now we have the signing statement. He doesn't need to veto anything.

[bluestateguy]

4. I might trust the line item veto with a president I liked and trusted

Bush would just use it to cancel spending projects for states and cities that didn't vote for him. I could easily see Bush using the line item veto to cancel, for example, spending on low income heating assistance for Massachusetts.

I would trust Hillary Clinton with this power, however.

But there is an old saying that says "Living in a dictatorship is great, as long as you like the dictator and support all of the dictator's policies".

So I would oppose the line item veto for those reasons. It might work great if we could always count on a good person being president, but that is not likely to happen. Bad people will always get elected to the presidency.

[wisteria]

7. Bush is just playing politics with this. He really doesn't want to

veto any pork in an election year for fellow Republicans. He is just doing this to make it look like he is serious about the budget excesses. Kerry wants to call his bluff. Either way, we win on this as far as I am concerned.

[flaminbats]

12. all Republicans love that taste of arrogance

IMO this veto power has some complex Congressional strings attached, or the Supreme Court shall not leave it standing.

[mom cat]

13. I am afraid that we lose on this one. Bush will get the line item veto

and then use it to take even more power from the congress ... a congress that will be more Democratic after the election. Why further dis-empower a congress that you are starting to take back?
I understand the desire to embarrass Bush by pointing out his protection of fat, but this can be done without the line item veto. We have enough evidence of it already. Why now give more power to an already out of bounds "unitary executive"? He has already proved that he will abuse any power that he can.
As to the argument that he has not yet used the veto, that is because he has been dealing with a Republican congress and has agreed with them. A line item veto is different. He could pick and choose what he wants to eliminate, and we know that will be social programs that cannot afford any more butchery. You know he won't attack the real far that is there for his cronies.Only the poor and the middle class will be vetoed.

[sandnsea]

9. Transparency in government

I'm sick of Republicans spinning and blaming Democrats for all their disastrous plans. Flush them out and stick them with having to defend corporate pork over helping the people. This is one reason I supported fast track too, the buck has got to stop somewhere.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Didn't the supreme court already rule this was unconstitutional?

Was bush asleep when that happened?

[BootinUp]

14. Kerry is off his damn rocker!

:mad:

The line item veto is not necessary, at all.

[DrGonzoLives]

17. Unconstitutional

And I said so when Clinton was pushing for this pile of shit. This is a massive violation of separation of powers and only invites even more corruption into government.

If Congress wants to rein in spending, then they should stop being little chickenshits and do it, instead of handing over massive power to the President.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

I'm sorry, but I hate this idea so goddamn much.

[stray cat]

20. If the Dems win than they will have the line item veto

that gives a president alot more power if he is outnumbered in the house or senate. Do the repubs really want to give all future presidents that much clout? I would line item veto Bushs tax cut for Cheney et al.

[Neil Lisst]

21. the line item veto would further advance the Imperial President

NO
THANK
YOU.