Bush seeks new budget power from Congress

[Judi Lynn]

Monday, February 20, 2006 · Last updated 1:25 a.m. PT

Bush seeks new budget power from Congress

By JIM ABRAMS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

President Bush waves to reporters at St. John's church on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's request for broad, and constitutionally questionable, authority to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills is drawing limited interest in Congress.

Even though he has yet to issue a single veto in his five years in office, Bush asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power. He said it and a movement to curb lawmakers' appetite for special projects, or earmarks, would provide a one-two punch in reducing government spending.

"We can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto," he said.

White House budget director Joshua Bolten said the two approaches "go very much hand-in-hand" in weeding out thousands of narrowly targeted projects that lawmakers secure by sticking them in larger, must-pass spending bills.
(snip/...)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Line_Item_Veto.html

[Syrinx]

1. didn't Congress pass the line-item veto in the '90s?

And wasn't it declared unconstitutional?

[jus_the_facts]

5. yep...but now they've got total control of congress and the SCOTUS....

:banghead:

[remfan]

12. Yes, that's one reason he's been using signing statements

Any preznit can reject a law passed by congress, but he has to veto the entire thing.

It's rather interesting that he only asked for the line item veto power AFTER his abuse of signing statements became public.

[Syrinx]

13. I leaned in favor of it then, but that was a foolish mistake

Line-item veto, that is.

I didn't foresee, then, what has so rapidly happened.

[Scooter24]

2. Will only happen by constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.

[depakid]

3. Since when has that ever been an impediment

to either Bush or the Republican party?

They have absolutely no regard for the rule of law- and Bush has never been held accountable for anything in his entire life.

Plus, there's no opposition party- and there's not likely to be one any time soon.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Too bad we can't line item veto bush & his people

[mom cat]

22. We have a different Supreme court now with too many judges willing to give

the emperor what he wants.

[radfringe]

4. on the surface a line-item veto sounds good

however...

do we want this kind of power in the hands of one person? Yes Congress can override a veto - but considering the current make-up of Congress and walking lock-step behind bush* - the chances of an override on anything are slim to none.

seems to me Congress needs to grow up and take some responsibility on their own. They know there are "ethics" scandals going on, they know the budget is out of control, they know there are all sorts of "special" projects being dumped into the budget and they know there are abuses - so why don't they clean themselves up first and show some responsible legislating?

giving bush* a line-item veto is just passing along the responsibility and the power they should be taking.

It also comes down to trust - they can't write a law of this type to apply to one specific presidient - it covers all presidents - the good, the bad and the ugly ones too. Can we trust that present and future presidents will use this veto responsibly?

[luckyleftyme2]

10. LINE ITEM VETO

a great tool if used to reduce spending;but how can you over-rule "big DADDY'S" COURT?
seems like this is what we the "little guy" should work on. forcing the ruling party into
appointing middle of the road "judges".
the reason we have so much "graft" may be because they know nothing will happen to them.
a perfect example is "the pork" placed on the tail end of needed bills sent to congress.
the shifting of corporate taxes to the middle class.
these are well planed scenario's by the ruling class to decimate and take from the working class.

[Laelth]

20. Welcome to DU!

:patriot:

I am concerned that the office of the President is already too powerful, as it is. Handing the President more power, under any circumstances, will lead to the further erosion of the checks and balances built into the Constitution. Bills that come out of Congress, ideally, represent a compromise of some kind. Giving the President line item veto power takes away the incentive for compromise in Congress and makes Congress further irrelevant.

-Laelth

[Eric J in MN]

6. If Bush were really concerned about balancing the budget...

There wouldn't be a sham Medicare bill.

Wouldn't be tax breaks for the rich.

Wouldn't be no-bid contracts in Iraq.

This is about Bush wanting the power to screw over anyone in Congress who doesn't go along with him by taking away projects from their states/districts.

[baby_bear]

8. don't forget about the give-away dividend tax

15%, looking for it to be permanent.

It is such a gross giveaway of tax money to the rich.


But how many articles or op-eds or editorials have you read about it?

Makes me sick.

Corporate welfare and welfare for the rich.

Needy? Don't bother to apply.

b_b

[hang a left]

25. Excellent point!

This is about Bush wanting the power to screw over anyone in Congress who doesn't go along with him by taking away projects from their states/districts.

[wakeme2008]

7. Bush is a MORON and so is the ppl around him

This show how out of touch Bush and friends are.

Congress gave Clinton this and it was overruled by the Supremes.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[aquart]

9. He's not a moron. He's a thief.

[UpInArms]

21. he's not a drain, he's a sewer.

:hi:

[radfringe]

11. FYI: list of Presidents and Vetoes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_vetoes

[Roland99]

24. Holy Crap!

[rodeodance]

14. WI Gov has one.Tommy T. once crossed off zeros for $$ appropriated

by our legislature for nursing programs. This is an example of how dangerous it can be. I can not even imagine how dangeroug it would be in Jr's hand.

[fasttense]

15. Oh why not, Congress seems to do anything the WH wants anyway.

So give the crazy king George the power of line item veto. While they are at it they should give the President legislative authority and the authority to ignore laws and constitutional requirements he doesn't like. Congress is absolutely useless anyway. We do need protection from those pesky terrorists and selling our ports to them is just the first step in protecting our borders. :sarcasm:

[Solly Mack]

16. oh just crown the fucker and be done with it

it would at least be more honest....America stopped even the pretense of democracy when Bush was selected.

Either fight the fucker tooth and nail and strive for actual democracy or cave - but half-hearted attempts at maintaining the already shattered illusion of democracy mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

My outrage at Bush is nothing compared to my outrage at those with the power to stop Bush and don't.

Those in Congress who will not work to stop Bush are worse than Bush.

It's like standing around and watching someone get raped - but doing nothing to stop it. Hell, some in Congress are even cheering the rape.

rant off.

[teryang]

29. Really

I couldn't agree more.

[cliss]

31. very good post.

As I made my way down this thread, I had visions of the Middle Ages. Somewhere in Western Europe. We are small group of people, maybe 50 or so. We all live in our Lord's estate, the Feudal Master. There is a rock wall that goes around it.

We work in the fields all day long. When it's harvest time, we bring the grain to the Lord. We get some of it. He takes most of it.

In fact, we are considered his property. If he doesn't like the way I looked at him this morning, he could order my death by sundown. If my family doesn't like it? Tough shit.

THAT's what we're coming to.

[fshrink]

32. 100% yes.

[twaddler01]

34. EXACTLY!!

"My outrage at Bush is nothing compared to my outrage at those with the power to stop Bush and don't."

TOTALLY AGREE 100%!

[Solly Mack]

35. Thank you all!

I just had to get that rant off my chest or burst.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. I can imagine * trimming democratic/blue state pork while

leaving puke/red state pork intact.

[Zenlitened]

18. Then he'll have his name legally changed to "America."

:eyes:

[LizW]

19. He could then kill public education with one blow.

Not to mention child nutrition programs, and every other domestic program he's been trying to destroy every year of his reign.

[Roland99]

23. Anyone have a list of Republican quotes when Clinton had it?

We should be sure to throw their words back in their faces.

[hang a left]

26. At first glance it appears the Repugs were for it and Dems were against

Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (center) and Robert C. Byrd (right) welcomed the court's decision by displaying their personal copies of the Constitution. (AP)

snip>

Unlike earlier laws giving the president discretionary spending authority, "this act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Such line-item vetoes are "the functional equivalent of partial repeals of acts of Congress," he said. But "there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes," he added.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. "Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies," he said in a concurring opinion.

The decision comes as a blow both to Clinton, who used the new power 82 times over the past 18 months, and to GOP leaders, who made the line-item veto a marquee item in their 1994 "Contract With America."

"The decision is a defeat for all Americans," Clinton said in a statement issued while traveling in China. "It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored the law with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said the decision "means a retreat to the practice of loading up otherwise necessary legislation with pork-barrel spending."

By contrast, the law's foes were ecstatic. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) raised his arm in a salute and exclaimed, "God save this honorable court." Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that Congress "tried to bend the Constitution the court said it will not allow this to happen."

snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

[tritsofme]

27. It was a Republican proposal

part of the "Contract with America"

It passed both houses overwhelmingly, at least one by unanimous consent.

[Roland99]

28. And the liberal activist judge filled SCOTUS shot it down?

[tritsofme]

30. It was quite a strange alliance of SCOTUS justices that shot it down.

Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsberg voted to strike it down while Scalia, O'Connor, and Breyer dissented.