WTF? Why does Kerry support the Line Item Veto?

[fooj]

Wasn't it deemed unconstitutional? What's with that?

Peace.

[hopein08]

1. What? He does?

Link?

[fooj]

2. Just heard it on Air America Radio...

couldn't believe my ears.

Peace.

[gizmo1979]

3. Give Bush Line Item veto

I'm moving too Canada.We can't control him now!We would not have a constitution left after 6 months.

[BlackHeart]

4. Not sure I understand

please explain

[gizmo1979]

19. With the line item veto

if it works the same as in WI,he would be able to take the budget and hack and splice his way to jack his Dept's. budgets and totally eliminate others.So he could take all the money away from say hud and give it all to the CIA or the NSA.Thus with this threat he could basically blackmail any dept into doing his bidding.Thus becoming a total emperor instead of a tin one.That's if it would work the same way.

[karynnj]

9. It only eliminates budget items

Not the Bill of Rights

[gizmo1979]

20. Ah but who controls the money controls

everything.The bartering for money leads to all kinds of nefarious actions being committed in the name of not having your program eliminated.

[Mass]

5. It takes away an excuse for Bush not to veto any spending.

This way, they can point at what he vetoed or not.

As it has to come back to the Congress for an up and down vote, the Congress has the last word and is probably not unconstitutional.

This has already been discussed when he announced that a few weeks ago and I think there is a PR on his website.

[karynnj]

6. Kerry supported it in 2004 and explained a way to do it.

Kerry's proposal which sends the set of things the President wants eliminated back to the Congress for up and down votes would likely be constitutional because Congress gets the last word. (Another way of thinking of it is that it is a second bill that eliminates things - which Congress could pass or reject.)

The Republicans are using that technique. Kerry thinks it's a good idea - that if used - could remove a lot of pork. He's always been against that type of waste. As mony Democrats voted for it under Clinton, it will likely get a lot of Democratic support.

[davidwparker]

7. I thought Clinton had it and the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutual.

The Commonwealth of VA has it. It is a way to keep pork from being added to bills.

[Mass]

11. Clinton's version did not give the last word to the Congress

This does.

[davidwparker]

23. Excellent. I believe the thread said Kerry came up with it. Good for

him. I hope it passes as law. No that were are nearly bankrupt, the line item veto would be good at removing pork so that maybe our grandchildren's grandchildren's children can see a balanced budget again.

[Laelth]

15. That's not what I understand.

It keeps the other party's pork out of bills. Congress has to compromise. Both the majority and the minority get some of what they want just so that the bill can get passed. Give the Pres. the line-item-veto and he can eliminate all the pork that his opposition insisted on just to get the budget passed. It's a sure path to tyranny, and I don't like it one bit.

:mad:

-Laelth

[blm]

16. But the way Kerry wants it, it goes back to congress for final word.

So, the president HAS lineitem veto but Congress gets final word. That's what keeps it constitutional, too. And it puts pork from EVERYONE on the spot.

[Laelth]

21. Which is fine ...

if we control Congress. If we don't, and a Repuke is prez, all the stuff we fought so hard and compromised to get in the bill gets sent back to the Congress for a straight up or down vote. Thus, all the Repuke pork will stay in, and all our pork will get nixed in a "straight up or down vote."

Not a good idea.

-Laelth

[TreasonousBastard]

18. That's pretty much it. From what...

I have heard, the states that have tried the line-item veto have found it doesn't really cut pork-- it just makes the budget negotiations more difficult and the logrolling gets more intensified. It's a lot easier to set up an executive with a particular item daring the Governor to veto it, or the Governor can use it for revenge or specific threats and armtwisting. Politics, not fiscal responsibility, would run the show.

Every President since Washington has wanted it, and there's a reason none of them have been given it-- it would weaken the balance of power even further.

[davidwparker]

22. I don't want pork, period. The title of a bill and its summary

should state what the bill is. There shouldn't be any unrelated amendments from either party. That's how I would prefer it.

[Laelth]

24. I'll have a helping of world peace while we're wishing.

;)

But seriously, pork is a budgetary reality for all governments. It's unavoidable. A line-item-veto just further tramples on any power the minority party might have. As I said above, that's great if we're the majority and the President is a Dem. But it's really ugly when the shoe is on the other foot. Plus, the executive branch of our government is already too powerful. The line-item-veto just further increases the power of the executive.

-Laelth

[Yupster]

26. So how do we get rid of pork?

We really don't have the money to be building bridges to nowhere and renovating Lawrence Welk's home.

[Sullivan4Congress]

8. Not a bad idea

This is a somewhat different version than the one that was struck down by SCOTUS. Apparently this one involves allowing the President to veto portions of the budget, which then require a simple majority vote to be overridden. The previous version called for a 2/3 vote to override.

The line item veto actually isn't a bad idea. Clinton benefiited from the federal version, and a number of Dem governors have praised LIV as a way to root out pork-barrell projects and backroom deals.

[blm]

10. He wants it to eliminate cushy payofff projects that lawmakers add to

the budget. Some of which finds its way back to GOP coffers.

This isn't surprising from a balanced-budget supporter and the sponsor of the Clean Elections bill.

It also puts any president on the spot to veto obvious pork that benefits his donors.

[Clarkie1]

12. I think a line-item veto is a good idea.

It would have to be written in a way so that congress had the final say, of course.

I like the idea of the President (whoever they are...we only have * less than 3 more years) being able to send individual items back to the congress for a simple up or down vote on each item. I think it would promote more responsible legislation and less pork-barrel politics.

And it isn't really giving the executive more power, because congress still has the final say. It's more a way of forcing the congress to behave more responsibly, do their homework, and be accountable.

[ProSense]

13. This is the Kerry proposal that Bush stole---standard GOP procedure n/t

[fooj]

14. Thanks. I knew that my friends at DU would clear it up for me.

Peace.

[MH1]

17. Part of his platform in 2004 - revised from the Clinton-era version

Here's a link where I discuss some of the rationale:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=603916&mesg_id=604066

and a little more discussion here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MH1/3

Copy of Kerry's draft proposal here, so you can read yourself and see what he actually proposes:
http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/03.06.06%20Kerry%20line%20item%20veto%20bill.pdf

[welshTerrier2]

25. the line item veto is a bad idea

viewed through a simple lens of cutting wasteful spending, the line item veto, on the surface, makes at least a little sense ...

but paint it any way you want to, the transfer of additional power to the Executive Branch is a bad idea ... and it seems to me it casts a bit of a dark shadow on the negotiating process between the minority and majority parties in the Congress ... the minority party, negotiating and making deals and compromises to at least achieve something, would now be in a position (when the majority party controls the WH), to negotiate in good faith and end up with nothing ...

the problem of wasteful spending is real and needs to be addressed ... transferring Congressional power to the Executive Branch seems like the wrong approach to a legitimate problem ...

and the line item veto seems as likely to increase spending as it does to decrease spending ... with even more power over a spending bill, the line item veto could make it much easier for a President to "negotiate" for a favorite spending project ... with a line item veto, a president could now more easily target a Congressman's or Senator's favorite projects unless that Congressman or Senator pushes the projects and spending levels the president is seeking ... "if you don't push to double spending for my home state's military base, I'll line out your bridge to nowhere" ...

and who believes the line item veto wouldn't be used by Presidents to punish the opposition party?

the line item veto is a mirage ... it's an effort to promote responsible fiscal policy ... there are better ways to achieve it ... the imperial presidency we already have is bad enough ...

[Clarkie1]

27. It would not give the executive more power

if it were written in a way which gave congress the final say.

And, perhaps more members would actually have to read at least some of what they vote on.

In this way, a line item veto is not a transfer of power; it encourages both the legislative and the executive to be more responsible. It eliminates the excuse of "I voted for it because it was the best we could do."

No, it's not the best they can do. We the people need to demand they do more. A sensible line-item veto would go a long way to putting power back in the hands of the people, because every single line on every single bill would be potentially subject to being voted up or down. That in turn makes it easier for we the people to hold both the legislature AND the executive more accountable.

[seaglass]

28. I'm sorry I just can't trust this in Bush's hands. He is petty, too

political and I think he would use it as a whip to get straying Repubs in line and punish the opposition.

I know this is short-sighted. If Bush really is an anomaly I would consider supporting it at another time, even under a Republican president, but I just can't support it under his watch.

Again, JK is supporting principle over reality - I think that says something about him (something good - he expects the best in people and because of this he's a better person than I).