Comments on: Feingold fights for line-item veto

By: PartiallyBlue

PartiallyBlue — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:47:56 +0000

Is this because only the President can stop wasteful spending? What makes him infallible?
You give the President too much credit.

By: Ed Francis

Ed Francis — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:35:47 +0000

It’s about time a line item veto is given to the president. When senators can add on amendments to important legislation to get pet projects funded they whole the rest of the senate hostage. It then falls on all Americans to pay for these projects.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:06:18 +0000

I guess I’m just not that worried about it.

By: PartiallyBlue

PartiallyBlue — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:22 +0000

Okay, answer me this, what would you worry about and how would you recognize it?
Patriot Act?…worried about that?
How about Combat divisions based in the US?
How about due process?
How about the military running drills in American cities to co-opt the civilian police and emergency responders under military command?
Exactly when will you be worried? When they come and take away a US citizen to a military base without due process? When the military grabs citizens in customs and renders them someplace else?

One builds a wall brick by brick. Ask yourself how many bricks have been built in the last eight years that have not been removed under the Obama Administration.

I am only saying that we need to stop adding bricks to the wall and the line item veto is another brick.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:26:10 +0000

“The plain fact is that this creates a tool for the President to shape the content of legislation.”

You basically acknowledged earlier in the same post that President can and does play a role in shaping legislation. This form of “veto” isn’t that much different, except it comes at a different stage in the process. I don’t know how narrow the scope of allowed “vetoes is” maybe this would only apply to a certain type of bill, and it could actually only focus on earmarks. I don’t really think that is possible however.
Long story short, I don’t think this will work, so I’m not that worried about it. Cutting pork is damn near impossible.

By: PartiallyBlue

PartiallyBlue — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:44:41 +0000

So let me see if I understand you correctly:
Sen. Feingold supports line item vetoes but it’s not really line item vetoes because it’s more like recommendations.

(Gosh, I never knew the President was forbidden to make recommendations before legislation actually hit his desk. Who knew?)

This is an insult to my intelligence or to yours or to Sen. Feingold’s or to Congress.

The plain fact is that this creates a tool for the President to shape the content of legislation. The Constitution clearly calls out the President to carry out the will of Congress. If politicians are in favor of this power, it should be given to Nancy Pelosi in the House AND to VP Joe Biden in the Senate… OR Congress should select a single member of each House to perform this task for them.

This is worth making signs, singing songs, and marching in D.C. This grants too much power to the President.

May God save us from both the Republican and the Democratic Parties and prevent this from ever occurring.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:43:07 +0000

Yeah, I have a post myself where I make clear my distrust of veto power, in general really. This doesn’t seem anywhere close to traditional veto power.
A lot of line item veto power research I have seen indicates that ultimately, it doesn’t help with budget cutting. But what Feingold is proposing looks legit, and ultimately gives final say, pre-presidential signature, to Congress.

By: Zach W

Zach W — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:29:01 +0000

PB, it doesn’t give all the power to POTUS; it simply gives him the power to make recommendations on what should be vetoed, then it goes back to Congress for a vote.

By: PartiallyBlue

PartiallyBlue — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:00:47 +0000

Not for me it doesn’t. I am astonished that people wish to give POTUS the power to do what the Speaker of the House and the Vice President (in the Senate) cannot do. This makes zero sense to me. It gives the President MORE power to discipline his own party and to hold the opposition’s feet to the fire.
What does everyone think will happen when the President has the power to control the purse strings of federal money going to a Senator’s or Representative’s district? This puts all of Congress under his dominion. Can anyone say ‘sycophants’?

This is a bad idea and I am embarrassed that Sen. Feingold supports it.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:26:44 +0000

To reply to you and Locke, Congress will be signing off on the final bill the president signs, so this seems to pass constitutional muster.