Dems Opposed to Modest Veto Plan

[tjwash]

Full Story at CBS.com

(AP) The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the line-item veto, and it's remarkable how much has changed _ particularly the positions of many of the major players.

At issue is a watered-down GOP measure that would allow a president to scrutinize spending bills he signs into law for questionable items and then submit cuts, or rescissions, to Congress for a vote. Unlike the current system, Congress couldn't simply ignore the cuts _ if both Houses voted to approve them, they'd go into effect.

Put forward by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., it's far weaker than the line-item veto power a GOP-dominated Congress gave President Clinton in 1996. Under that bill, before it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998, Clinton's line-item vetoes automatically went into effect unless overturned by a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate.

Still, debate on Gregg's plan already has whipped up passions. Most adamant in opposition is Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who assaulted the idea last week and again Monday as an attack on Congress' control over the federal purse strings.

"Make no mistake, this line-item veto authority would grant tremendous _ and dangerous _ new power to the president," Byrd said. "He would have unchecked authority to imperil congressional power over the purse, a power that the constitutional framers felt was absolutely vital to reining in an overzealous president."

Of course they have changed their minds. Twelve years ago no one could ever have imagined that this current lunatic would be in the White House. We need to take power away from these bloodthirsty lunatics, not hand over more. That's what being a majority Congress and Senate is supposed to be all about.

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. "MODEST" Veto plan? ANY Line Item Veto power given to the psycho is NOT "Modest."

It's downright DANGEROUS and STUPID.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Why not just prohibit the damned riders on bills?

It would have the desired effect of eliminating pork and not require a Constitutional amendment (the Constitution only gives the President power to approve or veto an entire bill as passed by Congress.) Many state legislatures go so far as to require that each bill have one and only one subject. Certainly Congress could manage that?

[tjwash]

3. We nned to eliminate B*'s signing statements as well.

Those are unconstitutional, but this hand picked SCOTUS won't do squat about it.