Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Line item veto discussion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:29 AM
Original message
Line item veto discussion
Since JK is getting a lot of flak (at DU anyway) for this, I thought I'd point you all to a discussion of the merits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=603916&mesg_id=604066

I don't know if I posted my feelings on this yet, but not only is this a) a great out-flanking move but b) IMO it is good legislation. My reasons for that are in the linked post, but summed up: it undermines the "pork trading system" even if a prez only vetoes stuff that "benefits" the other party.

For those queasy about JK's support of line-item veto, please consider it carefully. IMO, once again - John Kerry is RIGHT. And the fact that it's so controversial and particularly unpopular among Dems with a rethug prez in office, IMO once again shows the emptiness and ill-informedness of anyone who accuses JK of being "spineless". Standing up for line item veto - consistently, regardless of who is in office - clearly shows spine.

Way to go, John Kerry!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Great post
This is genuine reform. I hope other Democrats get behind it, otherwise we could well lose the "reform" issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks!
I agree, that this is a vital element of reform, but I think it needs to be communicated correctly.

I would encourage folks to venture into the other forums and explain the rationale for LIV to folks. (please!)

But I also want to add - there are other ways, I think, to achieve the same basic goal. I would support any of those methods that I believed would work. LIV may not be the best method, objectively speaking...but the opportunity has presented itself. And as Bismarck and many others after have said, "Politics is the art of the possible." or, take what you can get, when you can get it. In that sense, I believe LIV is at this moment, our best option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. It is a good reform.
If we can't vote for a good reform because Bush is in power, we need to become an opposition party and oppose everything and the party is not willing to do that, as we can see with the lobbying reform.

The one good reform that would make a difference is to offer public financing of election campaigns, and the Democrats are at best squirmish on that (I hope Kerry will reoffer the Wellstone-Kerry Act once again).

When it comes to the line-item veto, the Democrats in the Senate will look stupid. They have voted for this bill once already. Three Democratic presidents have asked for it (FDR, Truman, and Bush), many Democratic governors use it. But they are going to oppose that. Talk about offering a good talking point to the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. After Pro-Sense's thread, there have been
lots of non-Kerry group people who have brought the Wellstone/Kerry act up very positively. If there's ever a time this would fly it would be now. It also, would put McCain on the spot. He is likely to have a finacial advantage and I wonder if he would be willing to give it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent post! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
6. When Clinton had the line-item veto
(for one year) he did good things economically with it--then the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

It's hard to say what Congressional repubs will do with this--the true conservatives ought to get on board, but they are conflicted: to support ANYTHING this president wants during this election year is a bit suicidal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. I've always thought the president should have a line item veto
And for those DUers saying that they might agree with a line item veto for a Democratic president but not a Republican one, I have but one word: hypocrisy. Last time I checked, it was the Republicans who want special privileges for only THEIR party - we're better than that.

I think a line item veto is a good idea and I've had that opinion way before JK endorsed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenndar Donating Member (911 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. Agreed.
I always thought the line-item veto was a reasonable idea. I'm sorry this is becoming such a divisive partisan issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. I agree with you MH
I tried pointing this out as well. I am not surprised that Sen. Kerry agreed to this and offered up the provision that makes it a better bill and capable of passing Constitutional muster. (That part where the vetoed items come back to Congress for a 50% + 1 vote.) Kerry has always been for making government as open as possible and this goes to that long held concern.

Right now there are a Omnibus funding bills that get rushed through Congress that contains hundreds and hundreds of pages of individual funding assignments. (These are the earmarks that people like John McCain claim are ruining the budget and riving up the deficit.) These Omnibus bills are subject to the 'up-or-down' rule of all appropriation bills in the Senate. So, like in '04 or '05, a bill that no one in Congress reads, that can be for up to $70 billion dollars or more, gets passed because Congress is in a hurry to go home for the Holidays. (This is nuts and very, very bad government.) Allegedly, the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress was done because people wanted to stop the Democrats from doing this type of thing.

It didn't work out that way. Omnibus bills are getting much worse, not better. The Rethugs don't want to shown as voting for specific programs that might endanger them in front of the voters. This forces them to own up to all their spending habits, like approving that ludicrous bridge to nowhere in Alaska. It also calls Bush's bluff as a 'smaller taxes and smaller government' guy. Okay, then prove it, veto the pet legislation for the funding of the History of Switch Grass Musuem in the Congressional district of one of the leading Repubs in the House. Go ahead, veto it, I dare you. (Then make Congressman X defend this bidget line item and, if necessary, take a real vote and record the number of Rethugs who vote for it, cuz they don't want to piss off Congressman X.)

This is a win-win for good government. It makes the Congress actually legislate again instead of passing everything in bad bills that no one reads, no one understands and that is killing the US budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I loved the statement that Kerry had for the omnibus bill
after losing in 2004. I tried to find it but couldn't. He compared it to painting a room in the dark. Saying that you don't know what it looked like but you do know it's a mess. and this bill is a mess.

Someone posted it at the time somewhere, at that time, I had never seen the statements that Kerry routinely writes and was blown away by the apt imagery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. It's in the Congressional Record
11/20/04: (Sigh!)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I oppose the passage of the Omnibus appropriations conference report.

The bill before us was written in a process that is the legislative equivalent of painting a room in the dark. You don't know exactly how the room will look until you turn on the lights, but you can be sure that it will be a mess. And, of course, that is what has happened. This bill is a mess.

The Republican leadership has taken nine spending bills, funding 13 Government agencies with more than $388 billion, and combined them into a single bill that is more than 3,000 pages long. On top of all that spending, they have included several riders that make unrelated changes in Federal law. Most of these bills were never debated or amended by the full Senate. Many of the provisions haven't even had a committee hearing. The only people who have had a chance to review and amend the bill are the Republican leadership and the White House, and all of that went on behind closed doors. And the public, the press and almost every Member of Congress has had no real opportunity to review them before we vote and send them to the President to become law.

So it comes as no surprise that this massive spending bill, created by a terribly flawed process, is itself terribly flawed.

The Republican majority and the Bush administration have provided inadequate investments in education, housing, small business and a number of other important domestic priorities.

The Community Oriented Policing Systems program, called the COPS program, has been eviscerated, and funding for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program has been cut. Both of these programs help our cities and towns fight crime and protect our citizens but putting well-trained and well-equipped cops on the street. And both programs had played an increasingly important role in homeland security.

The bill does not keep our promise to care for our veterans. The funding level included in the conference report for veteran's healthcare, while above last year's level, is insufficient to meet the needs of our veterans. Today, 500,000 veterans are prevented from receiving health care through the Veterans Administration. New veterans are fighting to obtain the services they have earned. Thousands more are waiting for disability ratings. The Congress had an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of those who have given so much for this country, and the Congress failed.

The bill harms small businesses by failing to provide access to the capital they need for investment and growth. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I know how critical small business loans are to expanding economic opportunity, especially in low-income neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the bill eliminates all funding and increases fees for the program at the Small Business Administration that is the largest source of small business loans in the Nation.

I will not try to list all the worthwhile programs that have been cut or eliminated, because the list is just too long. The point is simple: dozens of Federal investments that help our cities and towns, our schools, our small businesses, our police, our environment and much more have been needlessly cut. And those cuts will do needless harm to communities and families all across the country.

And along with the spending provisions of the bill, the White House and the Republican leadership have attached riders that make changes in Federal law. These are provisions that have not been considered by the House or Senate, and in many cases have not received a committee hearing or markup.

The bill includes a provision that will prevent Federal, State and local governments from requiring any institutional or individual health care provider to provide, pay for, or refer for abortion services. Ten of my female colleagues, including two Republicans, have expressed their strong opposition to that provision and affect it may have on reproductive health services. In a letter to the Appropriations Committee, they point out that the provision has never been considered and never had a hearing in the Senate. It comes down to this: whether you support or oppose this provision, and I oppose it, this is no way to do the people's work. Whatever you think of this provision, it does not belong in a 3,000 page spending bill. It deserves a hearing, a debate and vote.

Another provision that was included with no vote, hearing or discussion by the Senate would allow congressional staff access to the tax returns of individuals and businesses. There is absolutely no justification for such a provision in this bill or anywhere else. It is a shocking abuse of power by the Republicans. This provision, which would allow congressional staff to review any private citizen's tax return, is unacceptable. It tramples the rights of our citizens and grossly violates the public trust. I am pleased to hear the assurances of the majority leader that this provision will be removed from the bill. However, we need to understand how it came to be included in the conference report. Who in the Congress sponsored this provision? Who in the White House approved it, since we know the White House has blessed this bill?

Is there any good in this bill? Of course there are many worthwhile Federal programs that are funded. Like a broken clock is right twice a day, a bill spending $388 billion will get a few things right.

I am pleased that the conference report includes $62 million for the YouthBuild program, which is a highly effective comprehensive program that helps at-risk youth obtain an education and take responsibility for their lives and their communities. YouthBuild is the only national program that provides young adults an immediately productive role in the community while also providing equal measures of basic education toward a diploma, skills training toward a decent paying job, leadership development toward civic engagement, adult mentorship toward overcoming personal problems, and participation in a supportive mini-community with a positive set of values.

And there are other good programs this bill has funded adequately. I am grateful for the good that will come from this legislation, including funding for Federal projects and programs in Massachusetts.

On a whole, the bad outweighs the good in this bill, and I will vote against it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. That was dumb of me - I looked at the Senate web site thinking it was
a one of the press releases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Not dumb at all. That was a good place to look.
I hae this index in my head that roughly (very roughly, depending on the day, sigh!) lists when people did stuff. I don't remember what they said in any detail, just that they said something about a given topic around a certain time. That helps in looking stuff up. (I don't actually remember all this stuff, just where to look it up when needed.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Tee hee.
"Painting a room in the dark." I love that comment!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think the Supreme Court was correct to rule the '96 law
unconstitutional - because it upsets the balance of power.

Kerry's proposal looks interesting, in that it sends things back to Congress for another vote - so that could be a way around the
"balance of powers" thing...

The thing that still bothers me about a federal line item veto is this - federal money, even pork, often goes to states that couldn't afford the projects otherwise - it's a way to balance out the economic discrepancies between states. I'm afraid that a line item veto would favor wealthier states over poorer states, and lead to even bigger disparities...

Any thoughts on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Wouldn't that be remedied in the Senate?
Where the balance of Senators come from 'small states'? Congress would still have to form coalitons to get things done and proper implementation of this would involve coaltion building and trading on items that people want passed. (It would be, OMG, bi-partisan. This just happened, finally, with LIHEAP.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. it would add a whole 'nother level to the horse trading that goes
on, that's for sure... on second thought, it would probably lead to giving small states even more power than they already have. It would for certain upset the current balance.

I'm still not comfortable with a line item veto. It would be a huge change, with no real way of understanding what the long term consequences could be... I don't think a parallel can be drawn between states that are using this and the federal government - I know that would be one of the "pro" arguments...

Maybe I'll just have to sit down with the Senator and ask him what he really thinks. Is this a real proposal or just a way to point up the hypocrisy of the Republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Q - "Is this a real proposal"? A - "yes"
Not that I can read the Senator's mind, but several places have cited that this exact (or extremely similar) proposal was in his 2004 platform.

I don't think he's playing games for the sake of games here - in fact I suspect he rarely if ever would do that. I think he saw an opening for something he's believed in for a long time, and went for it. If it discomfits * or the republicans, so much the better.

I do think that he might not have wasted energy on this if * hadn't brought it up. I can just see a huge grin breaking out on our fave Senator's face when * made his proposal..."oh you think you want that, huh? Well so do I...so let's see what you're really gonna do with it..." That's just my creative imagination working, though. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. And I know
Bush didn't put forth a Kerry proposal to make Kerry look ggod. My thinking is Bush was anticipating painting all the Democrats as hypocrites. IMO, something went wrong in his strategy (typical), and that something was Kerry calling his bluff. The irony is that people are wondering why Kerry supports this: it's his plan!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. And Sen. Kerry has always been in favor of fiscal discipline
and sunshine laws that make how government operates transparent. It is an entirely in character thing for him to do. Plus, the Rethugs will have to stand up and accountable for their actions and can't use the 'tax and spend' label on the Dems, cuz we will have votes, on the record votes, on it. hehehehehehehe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. I doubt it would favor the wealthiest states
They are almost all blue. When the Republicans are in control they won't be favored because they aren't their base. When the Democrats are in, it would be against our basic ideology to favor the sates that need it the least. (Just like most of the top 2% live in blue states, but blue state Senators don't vote them tax breaks.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
12. Something is not right
Edited on Wed Mar-08-06 01:45 PM by ProSense
I think Bush's request for a line item veto was a bluff. I just posted an article in GD-P: the Repubs have added back in the spending cuts. What I want to know is this: Does this mean they chickened out of the line item veto also? Are the Republicans still going to consider giving it to him so that he can cut these programs? He would never dare to because it's an election year, and Congress is hearing from voters. It's the reason they suddenly giving up on their economy-boosting tax cuts. Now that they've put these cuts back everybody wins, including all the pork project promoters. According to the article the line item veto is in question in the House bill. Adding back these cuts is easier than voting up or down on wasteful spending, but Bush's spending habits are still driving the debt sky high.

I'm trying to figure out what's going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
23. PDF text of Kerry's new Line Item Veto proposal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-09-06 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Thanks! Also check this out -
I caught only the tail end of this last night but hope to listen to the whole thing sometime today.

Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane (WHYY)

Wednesday 3/8/2006


Hour One
The politics of the line-item veto. Why is Bush, a President who has never vetoed a bill, now asking for line-item veto power? Bush is asking Congress to pass a plan that would give him the authority to cut funding for projects he deems wasteful. We'll talk with ROSS BAKER, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and a scholar on Congress, and STEVE ELLIS Vice President of Programs at Taxpayers for Common Sense, the organization that gives out The Golden Fleece Awards. Listen to this show via Real Audio



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC