WHY do Democrats support the Line Item Veto????

[in_cog_ni_to]

I heard on the SPAN this morning that Kerry, Feingold and OTHER Democrats support the Line Item Veto. WHY?
What's their plan here? We know why the repukes want it, but why the Dems? Please. Someone explain this to me.:(

[Caution]

1. Because the repubs control congress.

Much easier for Dems to win the presidency than to retake congress.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. I don't know about that

I think they do it for fear of losing again.

Yet, they lose again and again.

I think this is because they are all spineless weasels without a scintilla of the courage of their convictions in their lame, sad, wasted bodies, heads, and hearts.

Worthless, the lot of them.

[bryant69]

5. That's comforting

But perhaps not entirely accurate.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. Thanks for the link,

but I'm perhaps the only person out here in this world who finds individual blogs simply the opinions of people I don't know, and, for me, that's not something I read. I'm sure there are real issues raised in your blog, but, frankly, the opinions of strangers without credentials are of no interest to me.

As for my opinion being "accurate," well, opinions are neither accurate nor inaccurate. They're completely subjective, and that's another reason why I don't read blogs.

Thank you, though, for the offer.

[bryant69]

37. Yes you are the only person in the world like that

You should be very proud of your uniqueness, because nobody else, ever, has noted that the Blogs are simply free-lance (and sloppily edited) opinion pages. Congratulations.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. Mmmmmm

Touchy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. *sigh*

Worthless is right. They know it's going to pass anyway so WHY support it? :grr:

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. HUH? What's that got to do with them SUPPORTING it?

The repukes will still pass it, but the fucking Democrats don't HAVE TO SUPPORT IT.

[bryant69]

6. The point is that if we have the line item veto in 2008

When we retake the presidency, our guy will have it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. *ahem* THEY OWN THE EVOTING MACHINES!

What makes you think a DEMOCRAT will ever be in power again?

[BushOut06]

13. These machines aren't nationwide

There are still plenty of places in the country that don't use these voting machines. Don't give up hope just yet, we can still win this thing fair and square.

[Caution]

23. if that is the case then why bother?

I HATE that line of thinking. It's ridiculous to think that widescale vote fraud can succeed over the longterm, people tend to notice things like that.

Are you going to bother voting? Why?

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Oh please stop. People tend to "notice?" SO WHAT?

They notice something illegal in the evoting, WHO IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? NOT the repukes and, apparently, NOT the Democrats. So? So what if people notice things? HUNDREDS of people noticed things in 200, 2002 and 2004. What has been done about it? 5+ YEARS...what has been done about it? 5+ years is LONGTERM, IMCPO.

[bryant69]

36. Gosh your right, it's all hopless.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll just pop out back to shoot myself.

Bryant

[EFerrari]

39. It would be more useful if you helped secure our elections.

But, it is your choice. lol

[bryant69]

46. That's apparently impossible.

I wish it were otherwise. But why beat a dead horse?

[EFerrari]

48. Not impossible! NM just went paper ballot. In CA,

the appointed Thug Sos just recertified our little friends AND he's got a fight on his dirty hands.

This is a fight we must and will win. It is THE fight.

So, please put down the gun. :P

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. OK. Buh bye.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

38. Not hundreds. Thousands.

:(

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. Damn...you're right.

:grr:

[Harald Ragnarsson]

84. Guess what? We noticed the last 3 elections were fraudlulent! n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Because they would like to see wasteful spending cut

What is wrong with that?

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. The ONLY spending that will be vetoed from a bill are from DEMOCRATS.

That's why the repukes are doing this. The idiot won't veto jack shit from repuke pork.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. And Bush's term will end in 2009

We will eventually have a Democratic President.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. LOL...*sigh* no we won't. We will NEVER have a Dem prez again.

IMCPO.

[MH1]

52. Okay, peel back the next layer.

Dems can't get their pork passed. So - they stop trading votes with republicans for pork. Then republicans find it more difficult to get their own pork in, because almost half of the Congress just laughs at them. And there will be less "good" stuff influencing Dems to sell out on a bad bill.

Is LIV the perfect answer to runaway pork? Heck no. But it will be better. REGARDLESS of what party has the presidency and how they choose to use it.

[DrGonzoLives]

75. Wrong

The Republicans are in a majority - how are they going to have a problem passing their own pork?

Furthermore, to those that support this, why is it a good thing that any President should have this much power? If Congress needs to control spending, then they need to do it, period.

[MH1]

78. Please see my post here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=603916&mesg_id=613735

[Toots]

8. All Congressmen hide special bills in must pass legislation

Republicans are as guilty or more so of hiding special perks in major bills. It would be nice if the whole body had a little more say. If a line item gets vetoed then the whole body has to vote on just that item, such as ANWR. The great majority do not want it opened for drilling but when it is hidden in the Defense bill it could be singled out and vetoed while the rest of the bill gets signed. I know Bush* would never veto ANWR but some other fellow in that position may.

[DaveJ]

12. That's the point right?

From what I've heard this version of the line item veto sounds nice. I would expect Dems to approve legislation based on its merits. The political rationale mentioned above seems more like the kind of logic neocons would use.

[BushOut06]

11. I think it's a good idea

Remember, it wouldn't be just repugs who get to use it, we'd get to use it also. It could be a valuable tool to help get rid of some wasteful spending - ie that "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

The only problem is it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has already struck it down. It would probably have to be a constitutional amendment.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. BUT, the repukes are in the MAJORITY. Whose pork will be vetoed?

Even if a repuke spending item goes to the floor on a line item veto, the repukes are still the MAJORITY. They will pass whatever the hell THEY want and the Democrat's spending items will be squashed. I can see it already. It's the way they operate.

[BushOut06]

25. Turnaround is fair play

I can see some of that possibly happening, but I don't know if they would get too crazy with it, and they probably would veto some of their own spending as well - like I said, that bridge to nowhere wasn't exactly very popular with too many people.

Besides, they know damned well the line-item veto could be used against them in the future, so they probably don't want to set a precedent of just vetoing every little thing the opposing party puts up.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Precisely! This Is An Incumbent Protection Plan!

And, anytime the congress and white house are both run by the same party, the entrenchment will be virtually permanent. That's why the Repubs like it. If they can get it pushed through, they can look "fiscally conservative" and still bring home pork to their districts. The other half of the nation gets shafted, and everyone in the majority party gets reelected until they die.
The Professor

On Edit: Stupid typos!

[MH1]

67. No, because one reason pork has survived in the past, is that

members on both sides of the aisle will "trade" to get their own pork.

If half the house can't get any pork passed because it could be vetoed by DimSon (or future replacements), they have zero incentive to give the other side a pass.

Thus, the "pork trading system" goes buh-bye and there is less pork all around. (I'm not saying it goes away completely, I'm just saying that this will help.)

[ProfessorGAC]

73. Then The Majority Gets Whatever It Wants

That was my point. There is no trading if the prez from the same party can redline those things slated for the opposition party. The only people who get to bring home the bacon would be loyalists. The trading of which you speak works to some degree now, because a president of the same party as the majority CAN'T redline specific projects.

There may, indeed, be less pork, but that's because only one side gets it. Then, the party that's in power at the point of inaction stays in power forever. Seems wholly undemocractic to me.
The Professor

[MH1]

76. I disagree.

1) There are anti-pork crusaders on both sides of the aisle. Even repubs rely on some democrats to support their stuff.

2) You are assuming that the "party n power" controls BOTH the presidency and the Congress. Just due to pure human nature, corruption and ineptitude, that is unlikely to be the case forever. Do you really think that "bringing home the bacon" is enough to save every republican in the current corrupt and incompetent regime in November?

3) there would be no reason for the Dems to vote for any budget bill that is laden with repub pork, so it would lay the responsibility for blowing the budget directly at the feet of the republicans.

Yeah, even if this temporarily gives the repubs a little more power (although based on 1, I don't really think so), it will only amplify their ineptitude and hasten their exit from power. IMO.

[ProfessorGAC]

80. You're Not Paying Attention

In my first post i said that if the party in power held both the WH and Congress. Now, you're saying i'm assuming that. Wrong. I said that it would be merely an incumbant protection plan if that happened, and then once it did, the party already in power would have a complete hold on this.

And, your last paragraph seems to ignore the maxim "All politics is local". Nobody is going to vote out a rep or senator who is always making their backyard nicer.
The Professor

[MH1]

81. Back at you. Go back to my point 1. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

82. How Can I?

Your not even trying to read what i said. My point was that the current administration and the current majority are the ones pushing this. Their reasons are clear, to me.

In order to bolster your point you stated i was "assuming" something. I wasn't assuming anything. I said it explicitly. That requires no assumpton at all. So, in the interest of making a point, you are finding fault with my logic, where none exists. The premise was clear.

I don't disagree with the concept in principle, if we have divided gov't. We don't. And, if the conservatives are for this, than i will be far too suspicious of their motives to support it.
The Professor

[emulatorloo]

14. I think they are calling BS on George Bush - Bush doesnt want to veto

Bush doesn;t want to veto any pork. This is just another Bush rhetorical move, and they are calling BS


Read Kerry statement:

<snip>

“Let’s pass this line-item veto, and let’s hold the President’s feet to the fire to make sure that a White House that has never once vetoed anything starts vetoing the incomprehensible waste coming out of this Congress.”

<snip>

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2151

[PsN2Wind]

21. The problem with Kerry's logic

is, Dubya is on his way out the door. "Holding his feet to the fire" will have zero effect on what he does. If a pending reelection bid couldn't effect his actions, how is pending retirement?

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. TRUE. IMCPO...this is a LOSE LOSE for the Dems.

AGAIN. Just like the deal with the gang of 14 over the filibuster. What did that do for us? NOTHING.

[DemFromMem]

15. The Line Item Veto is really bad for corporate lobbyists

Getting little line items for their corporate clients is their stock in trade. It's going to be a lot easier to scrub out those provisions with the line item veto. The next Democratic President will find this tool very helpful.

Most governors have it and it really has made a difference keeping state budgets under control. This is not a right/left issue per se.

Every recent President has wanted this tool and it really should be available. Clinton was the only one to have received it until the Supreme Court took it away. I think that this newest version is intended to address the concerns of the SC. Can't remember the specific problems in that case since it has been several years.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. There will nEVER be another Democratic President.

The repukes own the evoting machines. The only people this will help will be repukes.

[DemFromMem]

24. Ooh, that kind of pessimism hurts my head at this time of the morning :-)

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. Pessimism? it's the way it is...they own the evoting machines

Why do you think they're so "in your face" with their legalizing illegal spying, selling off our ports, torturing prisoners, banning abortion, giving tax breaks to the wealthy while RAPING the middle class, VP shooting someone and covering it up, ect..ect..ect..? They KNOW what's going to happen. They have it PERFECTED! Bush's poll numbers are IN THE TOILET and they CONTINUE with their bullshit policies IN THE OPEN..."IN YOUR FACE"...WHY? IMCPO, it's because they know they will NEVER lose another election.

[LisaLynne]

16. They think that Diebold will give them their turn in the Oval Office.

I'm only half joking here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. That's what I thought back in 2002. Didn't happen.

I was hoping our Dems had better hackers than their hackers, but that didn't happen because the Democrats don't believe there's a problem with the evoting machines. :( "Stop crying in your teacups," he told an audience in response to outcries about the stolen election of 2000. "Get over it!" ("He is impatient with Democratic oratory about the 'stolen' election," a July 2 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted.)(Kerry)

[MH1]

18. Reduce the value and therefore tendency to bury pork in bills.

Okay so a republican pres will only "line item veto" pork items put there by Dems? Now think that through to the next layer. How did the pork get there in the first place, and why did Dems vote for a crappy bill in the first place? Because of trades. Line item veto - if used in any manner - undermines the pork trading system. Because no one will support someone else's pork when they can't get their own.

I supported line item veto when Clinton got it, I was unhappy with the S.C. declaration of it as unconstitutional (although I can't judge the legal basis, so if it is, it is), and I was very pleased to find that John Kerry seems to see what I see on this issue (as he does on so many, which is why I support him so strongly).

For those who think this new version will go down as unconstitutional also, well let's let the S.C. be the judge of that. This is a different approach that seems to address the issue raised by the prior decision.

[Armstead]

19. Maybe because it's a good idea

It sucks that Bush is the president who would benefit from it currently. But I've always throught the basic concept makes sense.

One of the worst aspets of the current proces is that these huge bills get pssed on an all-or-nothing basis. They include a whole package of actions and spending on broad subjets, so things that make no sense get lumped in with worthy ones....Plus a lot of superrfluous crap gets tossed in there too.

The Patriot Act, for example, should have been broken into more specific proposals. At least that way the legitimate technical issues would not have to be dealt with along with the abusive intrusive ones.

Anything that breaks up this practice is a good IMHO.

[Mass]

33. Because it is useful and they know it

The only reason the opponents of the bill have had until know (except that they will not be able to stick pork in bills) is that Bush is president.

This is a poor reason to oppose a bill. We have to fight Bush, not the bills that will make his excuses for fighting the bill irrelevant.

Pass the bill, then point at all the pork Bush has not vetoed and that he could have. Dont let him any excuses for not vetoing things like the bridge in Alaska and other pet projects.

[sinkingfeeling]

34. There might be some merit to a line item veto if it were only to be

used to cut 'pork' in appropriations bills. I suspect that the Chimp would like to have it for 'tuning up' or 'rewriting' laws he doesn't like. However, the US Supreme Court stated that the only way to get it was via Constitutional Amendment in 1998:

<snip>
The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.

If Congress wants to give the president that power, they will have to pass a constitutional amendment, Stevens said. "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

[karynnj]

40. I think it only applies to the budget

[sinkingfeeling]

45. I haven't seen the current proposed bill, have you?

[MH1]

77. Here it is - draft of Kerry's bill

http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/03.06.06%20Kerry%20line%20item%20veto%20bill.pdf

[kentuck]

35. If Dems win Congress in 2006 and Bush is President until 2008...?

Everything that the new Democratic Congress may put forth will be subject to a veto or "slowdown" of legislation by the Republican President. I still do not know if Congress would require a 2/3rds vote to override the veto? Very important point to remember.

[karynnj]

44. He already has veto power and can veto anything

This lets him pull off stuff to selectively veto - so it has to stand alone. On the assumption that we control the Senate - the up and down vote is ours if we stick together.

[laruemtt]

41. this way * will be held more accountable

for what he lets pass. he won't be able to blame things that pass on congress. it will be a very clear record of what he lets pass through and what he vetoes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. How will he be held accountable? By our Democrats

who saved the filibuster to use "for extraorsinary circumstances" and found the SC nomination of a RW religious nut job wasn't an "extraordinary circumstance?" Who will hold him responsible? The media? The Democrats?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

50. Please allow me to applaud

your extraordinarily articulate and righteous rage. Your posts here have been - in my opinion - arrows through the hearts of the weasel Democrats in Congress.

And you did it all without flipping out. If only for that, I salute you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. Thank you, OLL.

:hug:

I was in a very surly mood this morning after hearing last night that Delay won, hearing about the illegal spying not being investigated, the Patriot Act was passed and THEN I hear on the SPAN that these Dems supported the LIV? I surprise myself by not flipping out in this thread.:)

[wiggs]

51. I see no value, until a reasonable president is in office.

Most of the reasons for a line item veto cited in this and other posts have to do with old politics....as if giving the administration more power will expose their motives for everyone to see and then, THEN, the voters can finally hold them accountable.

This type of thinking does not work anymore... it certainly hasn't for the last five years. It is even less likely during lame duck years. Low approvals don't matter, IMO.

Makes no sense to me whatsoever. We gave B*sh the IWR, which he abused, and look what hay dems have made with that.

[MH1]

53. "Look what hay..."

That's because so many "Democrats" are busy bashing DEMS for voting to give * the authority - conditionally - rather than bashing * for abusing the authority and ignoring the conditions.

Hmmm. You may have a point though. Whatever goes wrong, it will always be the fault of the Democrats, even according to a great many Democrats.

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. Conditionally? How so?

Please explain how the Dems get anything out of supporting this. Thanks.

If Democrats are so sure they will win in '06 and '08 then why not wait to support a Line Item Veto when THEY are in power? They only have 8 more months to wait. Why hand it to these corrupt SOBs?

[MH1]

56. I was referring to the IWR being conditional. n/t

[MH1]

57. What Dems get out of line item veto

1) Kerry has been supporting Line Item Veto for a long time. It was in his 2004 platform. It would be the height of hypocrisy to oppose it now just because the other party controls the Oval Office.

2) See my post upthread. LIV undermines the "pork trading system" REGARDLESS of whether the president only vetoes pork of the other party. There will be far less incentive for Dems to support rethugs pork because they know that they don't get anything in return.

3) Of course there is the "full responsibility falling on the republicans for their pork" idea too, but I agree that we'll have trouble "making hay" of that one. Of course we should be able to - my point was that Dems will be too busy blaming other Dems, a la IWR, to make hay out of republicans' abuse of this - just like IWR.

[wiggs]

58. No hypocrisy...only opportunity

Kerry just as easily could have said: "I've always supported a line-item veto for presidents to help eliminate pork, but this president has proven incapable of making good decisions on behalf of most Americans. I will not trust his judgement with a line item veto."

[in_cog_ni_to]

62. It seems so easy, doesn't it?

*sigh*

[MH1]

66. The statement you suggest would come off whiny, immature, and

stupid.

Line item veto either is or is not a good idea. Which president of which party is in office, makes absolutely no difference.

Americans voted for this president and their members of Congress - they have to live with them until the next election, or until there is both grounds and groundswell for impeachment.

This may be the best chance for a long time to get a good-government measure passed that we have needed for a long time. (Assuming you believe it is a good government measure, which I certainly do, and apparently Kerry does also). Also, and more likely, it as a beautiful opportunity to call Bush's bluff and make the republicans put up or shut up. I seriously doubt that they will want to "put up" - ie they will not actually pass LIV - so I have no idea what is your problem with Kerry playing it the way he did. This will give us one more republican broken promise to point to in November.

[wiggs]

70. Wow

I'm surprised there are people out there who still think it doesn't matter who is president.

[MH1]

71. Broad-brush much? Try re-reading my statement in context. n/t

[wiggs]

83. "Whatever goes wrong, it will always be the fault of the Democrats" nt

[MH1]

72. So, different rules should apply,

depending on which party the president is from?

If Clinton is in power, impeachment for lying is a good idea....if Bush is in power, it's not. Got it.

(oh wait, that's the republican line of thinking!)

:eyes:

[jbnow]

69. Is the Line Item Veto

being proposed only for budget items?

I'd want to know so many more details, though it's not my decision anyway.

We can talk about pork, of course people are against that. But bush has tried to cut or zero out funding for the programs like Community Development Block Grants in HUD every year and congress has reacted to pressure from local and state governments and activist groups and ignored bush's demands and funded them. That's just one example. Congress has been bad for the lower classes, students and all that but the president consistently wants them to be worse.

For every bridge to nowhere he might veto there will be thousands who can't afford college, shelter, a new furnace, heating assistance, day care and all the other things bush thinks wastes money.

So...this depends on how the veto works, what comes back to congress and what kind of vote it takes. I would like to hear more about why any Democrat would want him to have this power. There might be good reasons, but they better explain them.

[MH1]

74. I believe so...there is a draft of the bill available here:

http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/03.06.06%20Kerry%20line%20item%20veto%20bill.pdf

It gives the title of the bill as "Expedited Budget Item Veto Review Act of 2006".

I think you have an important point about what * will veto. And I do have some concern that * doesn't have to worry about his own re-election. HOWEVER, if he does that stuff

a) it will really set the republican party up for infighting because some of his party will have to answer for it come election time; and remember this bill allows Congress to override each line veto with only 50%+1 majority (not 2/3 like the Clinton-era bill that was ruled unconstitutional by the S.C.) So republicans will not be able to hide behind the veto - if they don't vote to override they show their true colors. And since I personally believe that each item should be able to stand or fall on its own merits - unlike the blackmail system currently used (refer to move by the House to block Dubai port deal by amendment on current military spending bill - good goal, improper means, IMO) - I have no problem with selected items having to come up for review individually. Let each Rep or Senator answer: Which side are you on, boys? (and girls)

b) see my argument in other posts on this thread about the "pork trading system". I believe LIV kicks at least a couple legs of the stool out from under the pork system. Maybe not completely, and maybe not as big an impact as I'd want, but a step in the right direction.

[wiggs]

59. I don't blame democrats for everything and I

and I don't let them slide on everything either. I call 'em as I see 'em. I don't put party before everything else like we are supposed to do these days.

[sandnsea]

60. Public accountability

So the idiots will see in black and white what Republicans really stand for.

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. How will the public ever know about it?

The media's not going to further our agenda. They're Bush's propaganda machine. How will the public know about the repuke pork?

[sandnsea]

63. A watch dog group takes up the cause

And does nothing but promote the annual pork veto project. This is something people care about, they'd pay attention. And for god's sake quit being so fucking negative.

[Ino]

64. Why do we need a line-item veto?

Why not just pass a law saying pork can't be inserted into unrelated bills, but must be legislated & approved on its own merits? What am I missing here?

[MH1]

65. Define "unrelated". n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. I'd rather see a Constitutional amendment

stating that each bill must deal with only one subject. Oregon (as well as other states, too) has such a provision in its constitution, and that prevents Senator Sleazebag from sneaking a special tax break for his best friend's buggy whip factory into the funding for national parks.

[trudyco]

87. I like that. At least this bill is a LO Request rather than true veto-nt

[LynneSin]

79. Line item veto should have happened decades ago

I mean, for right now it makes no sense but when they tried passing it during the Clinton administration it failed miserably. This bill will never pass until either democrats control both senate & house OR a republican is in the White House.

So let's get it done now because when we have control in 2008 we'll have the last laugh!

[onenote]

85. actually the line-item veto was passed during Clinton's presidency

but was struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional

[LynneSin]

86. This is even better if republicans are on board

because they'll write it favorable to getting past the SCOTUS