I was surprised to see that as well. I have to admit, the first thing that entered my head was "Hopefully this is reverse psychology now that bush's poll numbers are in the dump. Perhaps this highlights their irresponsibility for the 06 elections"
We can only hope, right?
nolies32fouettes |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:09 am | #
The NYT has a great editorial up slamming GW Clusterfuck's recent trip to south China- brutal beating they give him!
drat, thought I finally had one
RAR-HAWK |
03.07.06 - 8:10 am | #
As I understand Kerry's position- any Clusterfuck veto would have to be upheld by a vote of congress.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 8:11 am | #
The republicans voted the line-item veto through when Clinton was president, who do you think they trust more?
Ugh |
03.07.06 - 8:12 am | #
The line item veto would get rid of some of the pork that gets added onto bills- there is a pretty good argument for it- although it certainly adds to presidential power. It would presumably lower the deficit somewhat.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 8:13 am | #
No, No, NO....I would not trust him. Doesn't it seem like the Republicans and their King are bringing up/pushing through a lot of things in a rush. Maybe it's just my imagination. I guess I'm just hoping it's a sign they are reading the writing on the wall.
B. Muse/Southern Dem |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:13 am | #
actually, I'd like to see the line-item veto. Just not right now. Feb 2009 would be good....
jayt |
03.07.06 - 8:14 am | #
what's wrong with that picture? well, he's not wearing a goddamned prison outfit, that's what's wrong.
he's not in a Nuremburg-style glass box in the Hague, that's what's wrong.
cleter |
03.07.06 - 8:15 am | #
I'm open to the idea. Republicans always say they want to cut spending. Well lets get these Republican presidents on the record about exactly what they want to cut. We can use those votes against them.
Semblance |
03.07.06 - 8:15 am | #
Even if a veto needed a vote in Congress in order to pass, that doesn't mean that the current iteration of Congress wouldn't continue function as a rubber stamp for the President.
I've thought for a while now that 2004 was Kerry's election to lose. The corporate media decided that Howard Dean was "too real" to make it to the big show (i.e. he wasn't willing to play the game their way) so they destroyed him. They offered us Kerry and his winning the nomination was almost a self-fulfilling prophecy created by them.
He sucked so bad he has to have been sandbagging us.
Skull and Bones, no doubt.
malcolmjames |
03.07.06 - 8:16 am | #
well, there is the reflexive "anything they propose must be bad" feeling. one gets past that. one must.
but this particular buck pass is so blatant. "i'm not in control of my own faculties, save me, oh legislation! i'm just a guy trying to get pork for my district, and doing so using techniques practiced under democrats but perfected under republicans!!!"
woe is fucking me. instead of giving up yet more rights to a unitard executive, why don't you try legislating in the best interest of the country?
the only way this will ever happen is if we have truly free and 100% publicly financed elections. otherwise, these idiots of the right and left will continue to sell our birthright down the river.
Robert Green |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:17 am | #
I've thought about Kerry's position on this proposal and wonder if this is simply a matter of giving BushCo enough rope to let them hang themselves. Couple of things here: 1) The SCOTUS has already determined that the line-item veto is unconstitutional; 2) It's soooooo retro 1990s; 3) It smacks of Repugs who are incapable of reigning in pork barrel spending and a preznit who is unable (unwilling) to veto what he knows to be bad legislation. Not a bad set of results for letting Bush have what he wants. Besides, like round one with the line-item veto, this one would be tied up in court for several years.
nlacey |
03.07.06 - 8:18 am | #
what, with the way this administration changes laws with signing statements, what kind of mischief could the get into with a line item veto? They have probably rationalized that they can do it because the want it, Just like everything else. Different supreme court now, let's try it again. (ignoring incenses like the constitution and precedents and all)
RAR-HAWK |
03.07.06 - 8:20 am | #
Steve Gilliard has another take on Kery's version. Says it's a poison pill:
Seeing how it's already been judged unconstitutional (as you pointed out), this strikes me as another PR scam, where Bush can *appear* to be for fiscal sanity all the while knowing that he'll never get the line-item veto he claims to want. Then when it gets turned down, he can whine about how he wanted to cut spending but those "activist judges" wouldn't let him.
priller |
03.07.06 - 8:23 am | #
It's he and his dang party running up the bills!
B. Muse/Southern Dem |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:24 am | #
well, there is the reflexive "anything they propose must be bad" feeling. one gets past that. one must.
but this particular buck pass is so blatant. "i'm not in control of my own faculties, save me, oh legislation! i'm just a guy trying to get pork for my district, and doing so using techniques practiced under democrats but perfected under republicans!!!"
woe is fucking me. instead of giving up yet more rights to a unitard executive, why don't you try legislating in the best interest of the country?
the only way this will ever happen is if we have truly free and 100% publicly financed elections. otherwise, these idiots of the right and left will continue to sell our birthright down the river.
Robert Green |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:29 am | #
Via liberal avenger there's certain loofah lovin liar who has a poll up on his site that urgently needs massive freeping.
C'mon FDL folk - You know what to do :-).
Oh and Redd the reply to your question:
"What's Wrong With This Picture?"
Is "he's not wearing one of those cute orange jumpsuits that they dish out free gratis and for nothing to residents in the big house."
I'm just sayin' :-)
markfromireland |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:30 am | #
I think that Kerry's proposal is some mean political jujitsu. Gilliard's theory sounds pretty solid.
beemer |
03.07.06 - 8:35 am | #
plain and simple...a red herring to get us talking about anything except the war.
honeyface |
03.07.06 - 8:35 am | #
In the Senate, Democrats ARE Republicans.
The Blogsphere is the new Party.
MarcLord |
03.07.06 - 8:37 am | #
This Administration is very close to issuing an Enabling Law, assigning themselves the onerous duty of issuing legislation straight from Karl Rove's desk.
For the good of the nation.
For national security.
Dick Tater is not mein fuhrer.
Antifa |
03.07.06 - 8:37 am | #
GW Clusterfuck claims that his version of the bill- and his version of the supreme court- gets around the constitutional objections.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 8:38 am | #
what exactly does it mean to "freep?" does it mean i should vote a bunch of times? will all my votes then be calculated in their total?
Thanks.
yogalinda |
03.07.06 - 8:42 am | #
Pachacutec | 03.07.06 - 8:21 am
Steve is right on the money. up or down vote.
rusty |
03.07.06 - 8:44 am | #
This is a damned if we don't and probably really damned if we do.
A line item veto is logical. Why allow an outlay for a railroad terminal in an appropriation bill for medical research?
Unfortunately, we can't trust the asshole in chief. I always thought Clinton would wield such a veto with diligence and he may not have.
Bush would abuse this power and rape anyone he is threatened by. No Dem item would survive and only corporate friendly appropriations will get through.
Line item veto? What the hell does he need a line-item veto for? He hasn't even taken Veto 1.0 out of the package yet. It's still in the shrink-wrap, sitting in his desk, waiting to be installed. What does he need to upgrade to Veto 2.0 for?
What would he have used it on? What bills that his rubber-stamp congress passed was he unhappy with?
cleter |
03.07.06 - 8:45 am | #
Bush is saying I might have vetoed something in the last five years if I'd had more choices. He is saying that this whole fiscal mess is the fault of a Republican Congress, not the Repubican White House. Where's his support for those messages coming from?
Aren't the biggest new spending items of the last 5 years Medicare prescription drugs and Iraq? Whose ideas were those?
clb72 |
03.07.06 - 8:45 am | #
priller....."See, what Kerry is saying that Bush is full of shit and wants nothing like line-item vetos to deal with, but it sounds great to the GOP masses and gives the illusion of doing something."
The well is dry! Do you know who's in charge of the U.S.A.?
avahome |
03.07.06 - 8:46 am | #
I've thought about Kerry's position on this proposal and wonder if this is simply a matter of giving BushCo enough rope to let them hang themselves.
John Kerry is an idiot who couldn't piss his way out of a paper bag, even if he had a full bladder.
Listening to himself (is that possible?) bloviate in the Senate for the past 20 years has rendered John Kerry politically tone deaf -- the only spontaneous thing he said in the entire campaign was the self immolating "I voted for it before I voted against it" gaffe.
This is another example of a brain dead John Kerry attempt at consistency . . .
I appreciate your skepticism about Bush having line-item veto power. But I suspect your partisan counterpart was equally skeptical about Clinton having this power.
Therefore, for the sake of fiscal sanity, why not support any version of the line-item veto that might pass constitutional muster and give any president the power to cut special interest boondoggles, tax loopholes, and pure pork?
Because, whatever one thinks of Bush or Clinton, it’s painfully clear that, left to their own devices, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress will continue to spend without regard to budgetary constraints or priorities.
anthony |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:48 am | #
What's to stop Tipsy from just vetoing Democratic pork? Those vetoes will survive Kerry's "upperdown vote." Republican pork? Well, if there's no veto, there's no override.
I don't trust any of these bastards any further than I can throw Dennis Hastert.
roxtar |
03.07.06 - 8:51 am | #
It was on this day in 1994 that the Supreme Court ruled that parody can be protected by the fair use clause of the Copyright Act of 1976. ...
It was on this day in 1933 that a man named Charles Darrow trademarked the board game Monopoly. Darrow based the game on an earlier game called "The Landlord's Game," which had been designed by a woman named Elizabeth Magie. She'd designed the game back in 1904 as an educational tool, to teach people about the evils of capitalism. Darrow's real genius wasn't in inventing the game, but in redesigning it. In the midst of the Great Depression, he turned the game into a celebration of capitalism, giving people a chance to imagine that they were rich.
The real problem as I see it is that with the Line Item Veto, he can veto the legislation and keep all of the earmarks for his buddies.
MikeL |
03.07.06 - 8:52 am | #
Reddhead:
in your NSA oversight post below, Bruce Schneier's name is misspelled, so the link doesn't work. the link to his blog is /www.schneier.com/blog/
not sure of the link to the specific article you referenced.
yogalinda |
03.07.06 - 8:54 am | #
Anthony -- the problem I have with it is that I haven't seen a version that gets around the reward your cronies and smite your foes prosptects that any administration would face.
And in my mind, the executive branch already wields a considerable amount of power as things stand now. What I want is for Congress to do their own jobs and legislate. Perhaps I'm a governmental purist of sorts, but separation of powers ought to mean something, don't you think? And honestly, how is it that we can expect a Republican President and a Republican Congress to cut things out of the budget (other than things sponsored by Democrats, which I think may be the only given in the equation). I'm just not a big fan of tyranny of the majority.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:55 am | #
The idea that this would be used solely to remove pork from needed legislation, is absurd. I think it far more likely that it would be used to remove needed legislation from pork barrel spending.
Actually I think Priller has it right. This is a PR scam to make the Dems look fiscally irresponsible and I think Kerry is trying to call the Republican bluff, which is a very dangerous game to be playing. I mean what if they call his bluff right back? We'd be handing a huge chunk of power over to the Whitehouse. What's next... the Presidential crown? Should we shred the Magna Carta too?
Stiff Mittens |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:55 am | #
I think priller is right, this is a PR stunt to create an illusion that Bush is engaged in "presidenting". As Redd points out, the GOP runs the whole show. So why is there no fiscal discipline? It's a failure of Republicans to govern.
Since the line-item veto is unconstitutional, I can't believe this is even a topic of discussion. The Bush proposal is all smoke and mirrors—just another Rovian ploy to control the media agenda.
puppethead |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:57 am | #
yogalinda -- I just checked the link and it clicked through to the article on both links. I've corrected the typo on Bruce's name, but the link worked for me. Check it again and see -- if you are still having a problem, I'll repost the link here in the comments.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 8:58 am | #
OT: regarding the WaPo article
Oy. Atrios takes the Bowers & ThinkProgress point of view. That's the majority opinion.
I'm in the minority, and concentrating on the details of the erpoting, rather than the headline and the editorial choice to run the story.
I don't disagree with these guys, but I still think there's some intersting stuff in that article that is not all bad.
No, no, no, no, no. The country has a lot of problems. But one problem we do NOT have is that the president doesn't have enough freakin' POWER.
He's half drunk with Presidential Power Madness now. Let's not stick a funnel in his mouth and pour a quart of Line Item Veto Whiskey down his power-crazed gullet.
cleter |
03.07.06 - 8:58 am | #
Kerry is a ball-less moron or possibly worse.
The image that is permanently burned into my head:
Day after stolen-election: Edwards gives a fiery speech announcing, reassuring, voters that "every vote will be counted." (Ohio was still up in the air, in the process of being stolen thanks to Diebold, etc.)
Kerry then says: "no, we aint" and concedes. WTF? I'm still waiting for those votes to be counted.
And remember the sham "recount" where ESS employees posted post-it notes with the vote "totals," then removed memory cards and computer hard drives to ensure the fraud was erased completely.
Bring Gore back. At least he has a pair.
tom -- chicago |
03.07.06 - 8:59 am | #
Steve Gilliard has consistently scored John Kerry 10 points higher for political brilliance than cirumstances warrant.
Two weeks before the election, John Kerry was spending time picking his cabinet -- picking his cabinet!!! Steve Gilliard took this as evidence that Team Kerry had internal polls that showed them cruising to victory; Steve Soto and myself took this as evidence of the political bancruptcy and utter stupidity of Team Kerry -- spending precious moments doing irrelevant tasks (like picking a cabinet) was evidence that they had run out of ideas, and were coasting to election day.
I like Steve Gilliard, but he has been way too forgiving of John Kerry's failures . . .
I agree that this is a PR stunt. If Bush really wanted this power he would have just started vetoing the parts he didn't like and say that it's the perogative of a war-time president to do so. The fact that we know about it should show that it's just a ruse.
MikeL |
03.07.06 - 9:00 am | #
OfT: "Churning the Iran Scoops"
by emptywheel
"Kudos to Newshog for recognizing that ABC's recent "scoop" that purported Iran was supplying improved IEDs to Iraqi insurgents was no such thing..." http://
thenexthurrah.typepad.com...he_ir.html#more
John Casper |
03.07.06 - 9:02 am | #
Anthony, This isn't about Clinton or Bush. This is about the relative power of the legislative branch as opposed to the executive branch.
To give the President this power would, in effect, end our republican form of government. It would simply put too much power in the President.
The better approach to fixing this problem would would be to do those things necessary to end omnibus spending bills and ear marking.
You know, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
old gold 30 |
03.07.06 - 9:04 am | #
Oh, yes, let's give the unitard more powers than those he and his homeys can think up on their own. Kerry's "trap," like his speakin', is too sophisticated by half.
Oppose, oppose, oppose. That's what an opposition party does.
W's never met a spending bill he didn't like and sign. The idea of giving a Preznit the line item veto when his poll numbers are in the mid-30s and heading south is absolutely ludicrous.
Oppose, oppose, oppose. C'mon, JForbesK, shitcan your high-falutin' explanation and oppose. jeeeez!
-
TeddySanFran |
03.07.06 - 9:04 am | #
Another thing to remember - one man's pork is another man's National Endowment for the Arts, National Education Agency, and Social Security Administration.
I understand the rationale behind the line-item veto, and if I thought it was always going to be used to trim "pork", I would be more easily convinced that it is a good idea. It seems to me to rest on the same false assumption that the President - whomever he is - will always use the power responsibly. This has been empirically shown to be a pretty bad assumption.
sethco |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 9:05 am | #
I don't buy Steve's theory for a NY minute. Not a chance does Kerry have the intelligence or the staff to pull off a stusnt like Steve gives him credit for.
As a gambling man, I lay down odds of close to even money that, once again, kerry puts a stupid plan out there, hears how stupid it is and then removes it, all the while telling us how the President shouldn't have any more power and he really didn't want to put it out there in the first place.
The constitution does not allow a line-item veto because the power of the purse belongs to Congress and a line-itme veto dilutes that. The problem is that Congress now passes immense rolled-up bills that contain all kinds of non-germane laws and appropriations. The revived interest in a line-item veto is an attempt to redress this other kind of imbalance. Unfortunatly, it is the wrong redress. Congress should go back to passing smaller more coherent bills that a presdient can sign or veto.
As for the constitutionality of this line-item law, it is apparently quite different from the Clinton era one and might well pass consitutional muster because the president can send back parts of the bill but Congress then can pass them to override (by a simple majority rather than 2/3, in effect breaking the bill up as it should have been in the first place.).
Kit Binns |
03.07.06 - 9:06 am | #
"Seeking to reassert his party's scuffed reputation for fiscal conservatism, President Bush yesterday. . ."
Excuse me, scuffed ???
I'm sure the writer was trying to sound all urbane and stuff but, the Titanic was lightly grazed by an iceberg, the Hindenberg brushed a wire . . .
cbl |
03.07.06 - 9:07 am | #
I agree with TeddySanFran. Oppose, oppose, oppose. The correct Kerry response should have been, "why should we give this incompetent administration even more power?"
cleter |
03.07.06 - 9:07 am | #
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and faces "meaningful consequences" if it persists in defying the international community, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday.
Cheney, speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, also reaffirmed that the United States was keeping all options on the table -- including military force -- in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.
"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 9:11 am | #
MikeL has a good point. Why doesn't Bush just use his expanded notion of presidential power with the "signing statement" to act as a de facto line-item veto? If he can sign the McCain torture law and write that it doesn't apply when he decides it doesn't, why stop there? Come on, Bush, show yourself to be a real man. Use the signing statements to "veto" things you don't like. More evidence this is just for propaganda.
puppethead |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 9:13 am | #
Don't know how smart Kerry is- don't know that it's very important in the grand scheme of things.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 9:13 am | #
Two issues most important to me now are the illegal spying on americans and the deal GW Clusterfuck signed with India. Hope both get more press than they are right now.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 9:14 am | #
By the way- any news from Fitz? Remember Fitz? He's still investigatin I guess.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 9:15 am | #
rw -- I'm working on something for later today, if I can get Fiona down for a nap this afternoon and can get time to finish my analysis. It's been a busy morning here.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 9:19 am | #
Looks like Cheney is planning another hunting trip. This time it involves farm raised people. Specifically Iranian men, women children. No girly guns for the Dick this time out. Cheney is speaking with his anti-Muslim hunting buddies, the pro-Israeli lobbying group AIPAC and saying Iran faces "meaningful consequences". It's getting so old having the Israeli government driving U.S. policy in the Middle East.
sunflower |
03.07.06 - 9:22 am | #
I think this is a straw man. As is their ususal M.O., they're proposing legislation they don't want so they can point to the Tax and Spend! dems as being responsible for the budget deficits. Same old Wolfman Defense: Stop us before we kill again!
Kate |
03.07.06 - 9:22 am | #
They either give Bush the line item veto or the fruits from the real NSA targets will fall from the tree. Judge their behaviour accordingly.
Charlie Cook's latest- this time on the 08 presidential race. Doesn't break any new ground- discusses Hillary, McCain, and Rudy. Says McCain beats Hillary by ten points and Rudy would have trouble winning a gooper primary. Nothin new.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 9:28 am | #
After reading Steve Gilliard's post on John Kerry, I agree with Steve's assessment of what John Kerry thinks he's doing -- unfortunately, John Kerry's scorecard on out-thinking Team Bush is Zero to 384 Gazillion . . .
Steve links to a Correntewire post by Chicago Dyke, whom I actually agree with:
I'm not sure of Kerry's motive in supporting line item veto either. But, I do know that whatever happens, Bush will be just as incompetent as ever and offer many opportunities for the Dems to call him on it. (If they wake up & just do it).
OT, from the last post: I called Sens. Hagel (202-224-4224), Snowe (202-224-5344), and Feinstein (202-224-3841). I urged them to do their sworn duty to uphold the constitution, etc...
Don't know if it will make a difference, but I at least I tried.
grandmatoo |
03.07.06 - 9:29 am | #
Passing an unconstitutional bill shouldn't be much of a problem for this crew of criminals.
Bush's Iran "treaty" violates at least one law. Can you imagine if Clinton did that? Signed a treaty that violated US law?
Bolton at AIPAC: did anyone see that? Precious. AIPAC is running this Admin.
tom -- chicago |
03.07.06 - 9:31 am | #
John Casper 9:02
IED devices supplied by Iran was at the top of ABC's 5:30 news broadcast last night. About 5 minutes of trying to convince viewers of how dangerous Iran has become.
Combined with Bolton's BS, this thing is really looking like the run-up we witnessed with Iraq.
Someone said: "Beware the Ides of March." I am really starting to believe this will happen, if not on the 15th, sometime soon.
Also, unleaded gas jumped from $1.29 gal. to $1.49 in our area over the weekend. Gotta get us prepared ya know.
Apple Canyon 2 |
03.07.06 - 9:35 am | #
Off Topic...Thanks for the Recs and the comments everyone. I am now going to follow through making all the appropriate contacts that everyone suggested.
Even if this tactic is completely within the law I think it's a good idea to bring it out in the open simply to inform people of its borderline ethics/legal problems.
Go Ciros Go!
B. Muse/Southern Dem |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 9:37 am | #
Interesting split on the 1998 Supreme Court line-item veto decision:
Against line-item veto:
Stevens
Rehnquist
Thomas
Kennedy
Souter
Bader Ginsburg
For line-item veto:
Scalia
O'Connor
Breyer
Opponents of veto call it a victory for the Constitution
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday, ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand that power to the president.
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.
In his majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens upheld a lower court's decision, concluding "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."
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.
Link to pretty good article on the Iran situation and Clusterfuck's problems in dealing with it.
rwcole |
03.07.06 - 9:49 am | #
Given Kerry’s propensity for over-thinking and over-analyzing, I don’t have a lot of confidence in his proposal turning out the way he has gamed it. When a Republican president exercises the line-item veto and sends it to the majority Republican Congress, what are the chances that the items vetoed would be primarily for the benefit of Democratic districts and for Democratic programs?
If the balance of power shifts while Bush is still in office, aren’t the Dems forced to swallow some bitter medicine – approving Bush’s vetoes of their pet projects – or risk the accusation that they aren’t interested in fiscal responsibility and are using their power to protect their own interests?
I would like to see the Dems push the idea of fiscal responsibility, but frame it as Bush not having the cojones to buck the Congress, and the GOP not having the cojones to buck the president. I’d like to see some Dems step up and declare that they are willing to forego some pork in favor of maintaining or increasing student loan funding, or services for disabled children. For all the pork that is going to the states, the states are reaching the breaking point trying to make up for cuts in health care spending, education funding, etc. What good is the Museum of Animal Oddities when the state cannot afford to fund services for developmentally disabled children? What good is spending money to study why birds only poop on your car after you wash it, when the state can’t afford to fund student loan programs and grants?
And why the hell is this not a question that someone is forcing our elected representatives – and our president – to answer?
Anne |
03.07.06 - 9:51 am | #
My first reaction on hearing this news report was "Oh, yeah, the problem with government is that the administration doesn't have enough power." It's the same authoritarian story as always -- they try to use their failures as justification for needing more power.
Considering how the ruling junta have already raped the conference committee process to kill honest legislative compromise, it's clear that they would only use this power to do more of the same.
I didn't like the line-item veto when it was a Republican hot-button twenty-five years ago, I didn't like it when they passed it in the 90s, and I like it even less now.
Redshift |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 9:52 am | #
Apple Canyon 2 | 03.07.06 - 9:35 am
Thank you very much. I will comment this over at TNH. Dems have got to fight this "now." A cruise missle strike against Iran is unthinkable imo. I want to read rw's link before commening further.
John Casper |
03.07.06 - 9:57 am | #
The line-item veto is something Kerry proposed during the 2004 election cycle. The proposed Bush administration mirrors Kerry's previous proposal.
"Under Kerry’s plan the President would identify wasteful items in spending and tax legislation and submit it to Congress to act on in an up-or-down vote."
“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.”
Bush is sinking in the polls and American's a pissed off about the out of control spending. It's not unlike Bush to use Kerry's ideas, he's done it many times in the past year or so.
Consider people are sick and tired of the PORK stuck in bills and this could help to curb that PORK. Instead of bitching because Kerry get's this, get that Bush's proposal, which is actually Kerry's proposal might actually curb the out of control spending by Congress and that might be a good thing...
Or you can all carry on bitching and blaming while some people try to make a difference - which is what Kerry has been doing in the Senate for the past 16 months.
Pamela |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 9:57 am | #
Also, unleaded gas jumped from $1.29 gal. to $1.49 in our area over the weekend.
Apple Canyon 2 | 03.07.06 - 9:35 am | #
Where's your gas station?
Stephen Parrish, CPA |
03.07.06 - 10:01 am | #
anthony: Therefore, for the sake of fiscal sanity, why not support any version of the line-item veto that might pass constitutional muster and give any president the power to cut special interest boondoggles, tax loopholes, and pure pork?
Come up with a legislative definition of "special interest boondoggles, tax loopholes, and pure pork," and I might agree with you. Give the president the power to throw out spending any time it benefits him politically and assume that he'll only use it for "special interest boondoggles, tax loopholes, and pure pork" is hopelessly naive.
Because, whatever one thinks of Bush or Clinton, it’s painfully clear that, left to their own devices, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress will continue to spend without regard to budgetary constraints or priorities.
anthony | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 8:48 am | #
Don'cha just love "they all do it, they're all equally bad" arguments that are directly contradicted by recent history? Look back a decade -- there was a balanced budget, no line-item veto necessary. We don't need a line-item veto bring the budget into balance, we need to throw out corrupt people who hand out tax breaks (long-term ongoing cost) and regulatory changes (long-term ongoing cost) to contributors, and then bray that one-time special "earmark" projects are the only real problem with the budget.
Get real.
Redshift |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 10:01 am | #
The line item was not "put forward during the Clinton years." Rather, it passed through Congress during the Bush 41 presidency, but the law was slated to take effect only after the '92 elections. Therefore only Presidents sworn in after 1993 would have the line item veto authority.
The thinking at the time was (correctly) that no party would vote to give the authority to a sitting president of the other party. Democrats who had faith that they would win in 92 were therefore comfortable voting for it as were Republicans who thought, wrongly, that Bush was a shoe-in for reelection.
That Bush is resurrecting the issue now is evidence of two things. One, he does not care about the Constitution and assumes no one remembers all the way back to the 1990s anyway. Also, he is behaving like Ronald Reagan who always hypocritically railed on and on about a the need for a constitutional balanced budget amendment while never once actually proposing a budget that even came close to being balanced. Like Bush, Reagan blamed Congress or the lack of a Constitutional Amendment but never -- NEVER -- came close to proposing a balanced budget. Similar pattern, deny responsibility, blame someone or something that has no control/influence over the ultimate problem, then distract people’s attention from your own screw-ups. Reaganism taken to new heights.
This latest proposal is just more distraction and needless blame directed at factors unrelated to Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. Next month this will get filed away with Mars exploration and animal human hybridization.
CFL
Caoimhin F. Laochdha |
03.07.06 - 10:02 am | #
apple canyon - where the heck do u live? I'm coming over for some of that gas! serioulsy, did u mean $2.49?
TiredFed |
03.07.06 - 10:03 am | #
Final note to the Kerry pissers and moaners here, I doubt most pay any attention to what Kerry has been doing but it might behoove you all to take a look.
Raising nearly $400,000 in 3 days for 5 Iraq Veterans running for Congress, is not the act of politician with out supporters.
Pamela |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 10:03 am | #
John Casper,
I apologize, I do not know what I was smoking. Gas prices $2.29 to $2.49 gal. jump.
I must have been dreaming on that $1.29 price tag.
Apple Canyon 2 |
03.07.06 - 10:04 am | #
Can anyone explain why it's not okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, but it's fine for Israel to have them? And please don't use the argument that Iran wants to destroy Israel. That may well be true, but how does that attitude differ from Israel's on their decades long efforts directed toward the destruction of the Palestinians?
sunflower |
03.07.06 - 10:04 am | #
Jeannie Z | 03.07.06 - 9:37 am | #
How does recently proposed line item veto legislation differ from the line item veto bill that was declared unconstitutional in 1998?
Stephen Parrish, CPA |
03.07.06 - 10:04 am | #
There's nothing to prevent the Republicans from eliminating pork now. This is another power grab, and a PR stunt, but mainly a power grab... all the more arrogant in that it's clearly unconstitutional. As if that's ever bothered them before...
Kerry's version of the plan may be politically shrewd... the last thing these wankers want is oversight or accountability. But while the present congressional process can be maddeningly slow and frustrating, a line-item veto could create major problems.
Batocchio |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 10:05 am | #
TiredFed,
Yes, I screwed up on that price.
I corrected with John already.
Sorry.
Apple Canyon 2 |
03.07.06 - 10:06 am | #
Also, if you google "The Next Hurrah", you'll get there.
Redshift |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 10:06 am | #
What's Wrong With This Picture ?
where are Moe and Larry ???
carolee |
03.07.06 - 10:07 am | #
can't see giving this President (or any President) even more power. The only power Congress has left is the power of the purse (they dont bother with any other Congressional responsibility like National Security oversight).
TiredFed |
03.07.06 - 10:07 am | #
Apple C. no worries. just got ripped again this morning at $2.50 per.
TiredFed |
03.07.06 - 10:10 am | #
What's wrong with this picture?
"I'm for line item,,,what?"
smskater |
03.07.06 - 10:13 am | #
The NYT has a great editorial up slamming GW Clusterfuck's recent trip to south China- brutal beating they give him!
rwcole | 03.07.06 - 8:09 am | #
Hmm...wonder how the folks in India and Pakistan feel about their countries being referred to as "south China."
orangejumpsuit |
03.07.06 - 10:14 am | #
Let's say Bush gets the LI Veto.
Every Republican pork project gets held up with the question 'where's the veto?'
If he vetoes, Congress has to vote on the line item. So no more, 'on balance it was a good bill'
Think in the context of the Alaskan bridges to nowhere. In the very short run this sets up a great humiliate the president opportunity. It only goes wrong if Democrats get control of Congress (then Bush gets to demagogue them).
jhe |
03.07.06 - 10:14 am | #
How does recently proposed line item veto legislation differ from the line item veto bill that was declared unconstitutional in 1998?
Stephen Parrish, CPA | 03.07.06 - 10:04 am | #
guess we'll have to wait for John Yoo to tell us
cbl |
03.07.06 - 10:15 am | #
Read this article and Send Him Mail regarding Liddy Dole's unethical fundraising coercion:
Alexander Bolton
Staff writer
Primary beat: Money, fundraising, appropriations and ethics
Prior to joining The Hill in 2000, Alexander Bolton was assistant to David Corn at The Nation magazine and interned at Roll Call. A native of Greenwich, Conn., he received his B.A. degree in philosophy from Princeton University.
Phone: 202-628-8521
E-mail: alexb@thehill.com
Addie Rose |
03.07.06 - 10:16 am | #
To give John Kerry his due, he has provided leadership on a number of issues, and his fund raising for fellow veterans is commendable.
Whatever the merits of his line item veto proposal, it depends on the good faith of the President and Congress for it to not be abused. BushCo and the modern GOP are defined by their corruption, and the line item veto would be used to punish their enemies and reward their cronies.
And on principle, the line item veto is a bad idea -- simply because it transfers power to the President at the expense of Congress.
Bush would actually never line item veto anything. Unkka Karl would wield the LIV pen & then read the bill for Shrub.
Dave |
03.07.06 - 10:19 am | #
Where in the freakin bloody hell is FITZ!!
Put some wheels on it FITZY!!
Sharkbabe |
03.07.06 - 10:20 am | #
Pamela -- I agree Kerry has done plenty of good things, and I am not a Kerry "pisser and moaner." But we are in a political battle, and I feel we have repeatedly seen that proposing something that can be used for good government (and also for naked political maneuvering) when the people in charge have no interest in good government is not an effective way to get good government people back in power.
The line-item veto proposal is yet another Republican ploy to frame budget problems as entirely caused by spending. Publicly supporting it may be a clever ploy to feed them a good government "poison pill" after it passes or it may just be intellectual consistency, but during the entire time it's being discussed before it passes or fails, it's supporting the idea that we could solve these budget problems if we just cut spending. Even if the Republicans are responsible for that spending, because they've made "tax and spend" a household phrase, it's an uphill battle to convince the public that they've been far worse than the Democrats on that. If, on the other hand, we are talking about the real situation, which is that the biggest part of the budget mess is the Republicans' insane tax cuts for wealthy contributors, then we're fighting on friendlier territory.
Whatever good things Kerry has done (and this doesn't discredit any of them), he does have a history of being drawn into fighting the Republicans on their terms instead of ours. That's why I think it's a bad idea, and why it bugs me.
Redshift |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 10:23 am | #
If Bush gets the line-item veto, the compromises republicans allow into legislation to gain bipartisan support will become as vaporware. In a close, important vote, republicans will use it to screw us.
BullGoose |
03.07.06 - 10:24 am | #
One more point -- the Line Item Veto is a right wing anti-government red herring; that John Kerry thinks it is a serious good governance proposal is more evidence of how out of touch with reality he is.
new thread: "One of these things is not like the other"
John Casper |
03.07.06 - 10:28 am | #
Let's say Bush gets the LI Veto.
Every Republican pork project gets held up with the question 'where's the veto?'
If he vetoes, Congress has to vote on the line item. So no more, 'on balance it was a good bill'
Think in the context of the Alaskan bridges to nowhere. In the very short run this sets up a great humiliate the president opportunity. It only goes wrong if Democrats get control of Congress (then Bush gets to demagogue them).
jhe | 03.07.06 - 10:14 am | #
Do you know what happened with the "Bridge to Nowhere?" It was hugely embarassing, but it was the pet project of a loyal Republican. So they took it out, and added in a block grant to Alaska that just happened to be for the same amount.
Don't confuse what should happen with what will happen. These people are completely shameless, and will bury and package things in such a way as to get what they want. The only people who will suffer politically are the ones who are more honest.
Redshift |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 10:29 am | #
THis is transparent...Bush/Rove are preparing for losing at least one branch of Congress later this year. W. a line-item veto, Congress has no oversight factor, even if the Dems control both branches...of course that's not quite true, but the WH can't think that far ahead; this is another example of flailing about.
sylvainsylvain |
03.07.06 - 10:46 am | #
Given his ginormous powers as UltraPresident, doesn't Bush already have the ability to just attach a "signing statement" to a bill, and thereby establish a line-item veto - without needing to change the law ?
It's pretty clear that the bill limits what can be vetoed and how.
Sometimes in order to win you have to fight on someone else's terms. However in this case, it's rather evident that Bush is going after this proposal on Kerry's terms, not his own.
As Kerry said yesterday "It’s no secret that President Bush and I don’t agree on much."
Steve Gilliard is right on his view on this - Bush has never vetoed anything, Kerry is saying give him the ability and we will hold his "feet to the fire."
I don't know anyone who sees the PORK stuffed in the budget bills as a good thing.
Pamela |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 11:40 am | #
What's wrong with that picture?
It's his butt that itches. Why is he scratching his head?
Oh. Never mind.
Anonymous |
03.07.06 - 11:42 am | #
Fair enough Redd
I suppose I’m as much a pragmatist as you are a "purist".
However, re:
“…can expect a Republican President and a Republican Congress to cut things out of the budget (other than things sponsored by Democrats, which I think may be the only given in the equation). I'm just not a big fan of tyranny of the majority.”
I suspect the Republicans and Democrats who supported Clinton’s effort to cut things out of the budget would defy your cynicism (especially since one presumes Clinton intended to cut things sponsored by some Democrats, as well, in the Republican Congress).
Besides, I think Clinton's leadership in this regard would've have mollified your concerns about the "tyranny of the majority", no?
anthony |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 12:34 pm | #
Pamela and others, I don't think Kerry is stupid at all, I just think he's been in DC so long he can no longer find his way out of the box.
I so totally don't understand - as a tactic or the legality of - proposing something the SC
OTUS declared illegal just TWO YEARS BEFORE. I mean, I know his brain is shot but ..two years? Could some pointy legal mind 'splain it so even I can understand?
Mommybrain |
03.07.06 - 12:59 pm | #
Jane - I get these sorts of fund raising letters nearly everyday from the Republicans (as described in the dKos link) -- and I am not a Republican.
The thing that is funny about them, is that they almost always tell me that because of my strong, personal support of George W. Bush's bold agenda, blah-blah-blah, I'm being singled out for a Platinum membership in the GOP. They almost always include some silly membership card, too, so I can proudly show it to someone and gain all the rights and benefits of the party and my status therein.
Tengrain |
Homepage |
03.07.06 - 1:55 pm | #
Sounds like Ol’ Fossil-Face Lizzie filched some "smarm" from the Original Fat Cow (Amy Ridenour, Abramoff’s Fund-Scammin’ partner & Bitch-in-Crime). Ridenour’s "College Republicans" cohorts must be proud; after all, those same shady letters—when sent to MILLIONS of gullible (and mostly elderly) recipients—generate MILLIONS of DOLLARS for her—and her fellow PIGS-At-The-TROUGH.
Why oh WHY aren’t the attorneys general of the states to which these extortion attempts are sent doing ANYTHING to INVESTIGATE and PROSECUTE what must surely be VIOLATIONS of the R.I.C.O. statutes? Wait a minute…could this be a potential Blog campaign? A new version of the "Roots" project(s)? Perhaps a petition on behalf of the growing roster of hapless victims of the GOP FRAUD SQUAD—or maybe some well-placed inquiries to state regulators in charge of Revenue Recovery?
Why are Lizzie and Assbite Amy’s "National Center for Public Policy Research"—another fine exemplar of the Wretched Right’s "Money-for-Nothin’" Mantra—even allowed to transmit this trash through our U.S. Mail? Last time I checked, it was ILLEGAL to STEAL through the Postal Service.
I say we DO SOMETHING about it. Lord knows Congress won’t!
Michele |
03.08.06 - 2:48 am | #
mannequins were positioned on the front lawn The man was set up with a backgammon [url=http://www.007gammon.com]backgammon[/url] he calls out banco and no other players are allowed to bet during that round online backgammon [url=http://www.007gammon.com]online backgammon[/url] back together and Ive had enough I want to go back to the future backgammon online [url=http://www.007gammon.com]backgammon online[/url] street was deserted save for a newspaper blowing down in the gutter .
Vanessa Gina |
Homepage |
05.13.06 - 10:39 pm | #
then a second later everything was plunged into a deep black silence backgammon [url=http://www.playing65.net]backgammon[/url] A cop that had been walking on the other side of the street glanced at online backgammon [url=http://www.playing65.net]online backgammon[/url] none other then a younger version of George McFly -- his father! Marty backgammon online [url=http://www.playing65.net]backgammon online[/url] Everybody freeze! NRC!.
Nayeli Abigale |
Homepage |
05.14.06 - 10:36 pm | #
The other two quickly followed poker online [url=http://www.poker--online.ws]poker online[/url] dance the last dance and kiss!.
Grace Kendal |
Homepage |
05.20.06 - 5:00 pm | #
INT LABORATORY OF PROFESSOR EMMETT BROWN - LOCKED ROOM backgammon [url=http://www.karbian.com]backgammon[/url] ran several times online backgammon [url=http://www.karbian.com]online backgammon[/url] Youre talking crazy! An atomic blast would melt me and the time backgammon online [url=http://www.karbian.com]backgammon online[/url] Im going to read the continuation.
Jessie Shirley |
Homepage |
05.21.06 - 6:58 pm | #
oh no kore wa parody backgammon [url=http://www.ply65.net]backgammon[/url] a great idea online backgammon [url=http://www.ply65.net]online backgammon[/url] the building The truck sped by missing him by inches! backgammon online [url=http://www.ply65.net]backgammon online[/url] CLERK.
Brady Davon |
Homepage |
05.22.06 - 8:04 am | #
If any of the four numbers hit, your corner bet pays 8 to 1 backgammon [url=http://www.playing65.net]backgammon[/url] change the course of events and changing history is a responsibility online backgammon [url=http://www.playing65.net]online backgammon[/url] Must have been Used to live I do live here backgammon online [url=http://www.playing65.net]backgammon online[/url] as everyone else.
Mallory Barbara |
Homepage |
05.22.06 - 9:16 pm | #
in the beams then jumped back and pressed himself against the wall of party poker [url=http://www.on-line-poker-online.info]party poker[/url] see the entire annhiliation of the world If not youll certainly see partypoker [url=http://www.on-line-poker-online.info]
partypoker[/url] Marty hesitated again He had a feeling that what he was about to say .
Natalie Abbigail |
Homepage |
05.25.06 - 5:21 pm | #
nonchalant party poker [url=http://www.on-line-poker-online.info]party poker[/url] A second later a huge explosion wiped out the 800 yard marker where he partypoker [url=http://www.on-line-poker-online.info]
partypoker[/url] needle raised off the scale as the power converter began to vibrate so .
Thomas Everett |
Homepage |
05.26.06 - 9:28 am | #
everyone around including Biff and his gang poker online [url=http://www.poker--online.ws]poker online[/url] How do you open these.
Brooklyn Mayra |
Homepage |
05.27.06 - 12:17 am | #
effect on the players optimal strategy, and should not be casino bonus [url=http://www.online-casino-bonus.info]casino bonus[/url] of habit He waited a few seconds expecting to hear some old song but online casino [url=http://www.online-casino-bonus.info]online casino[/url] accompanied by an intense shock wave casino online [url=http://www.online-casino-bonus.info]casino online[/url] the Professor any longer After a moment Professor Brown spoke.
Jane Citlali |
Homepage |
06.02.06 - 7:00 am | #
sessions to try to regain some mobility in my hand On our way down to play casino [url=http://www.online-casino-player.info]play casino[/url] Not a holocaust -- casino online [url=http://www.online-casino-player.info]casino online[/url] transcended the gap of time and this has caused an alteration in your online casino [url=http://www.online-casino-player.info]online casino[/url] vast supplies of petroleum in the earth plus the massive reserves that .
Whitney Lilia |
Homepage |
06.04.06 - 12:31 pm | #
with him either casino online [url=http://www.online-casino-the.info]casino online[/url] chest Marty looked down at it for a moment a little curiously then online casino [url=http://www.online-casino-the.info]online casino[/url] other times he will alter them to enhance his winning chances .
Blake Anderson |
Homepage |
06.04.06 - 11:30 pm | #
but still the game of baccarat has one of the best odds in casino if you know this casino online [url=http://www.online-casino-the.info]casino online[/url] idea where to fire online casino [url=http://www.online-casino-the.info]online casino[/url] and the hand values determined by the same rules as for American baccarat.
Andre Reynaldo |
Homepage |
06.05.06 - 1:15 pm | #
A Tab casino en linea [url=http://www.play-onlinecasino.com/casino-en-
linea/]casino en linea[/url] The Professor dashed over to the place where his beam had hit Shemp juegos de casino [url=http://www.play-onlinecasino.com/casino-en-
linea/]juegos de casino[/url] situation where -- well -- you know you have to act a certain way but .
Payton Parker |
Homepage |
06.17.06 - 5:18 am | #
the coffee pot on and he cheerfully poured himself a cup then opened spiele kasino [url=http://www.best-onlinecasino.ws/kasino-
spiele/]spiele kasino[/url] EXT NEVADA DESERT - 15 MILES FROM TEST SITE kasino [url=http://www.best-onlinecasino.ws/kasino-
spiele/]kasino[/url] Brown Industries! Ive got a lot of ideas that are going to create a spiel kasino [url=http://www.best-onlinecasino.ws/kasino-
spiele/]spiel kasino[/url] Marty could hear the voice start counting down the remaining thirty .
Gustavo Bradyn |
Homepage |
06.18.06 - 12:14 am | #
To place a come bet when you play craps online, put your chips in the box labeled Come online casino [url=http://internet-casino-3ek8te.blogspot.com]
online casino[/url] mom.
Marshall Nestor |
Homepage |
06.23.06 - 4:18 am | #
Im going to see you online casino [url=http://casinos-whckul.blogspot.com]online casino[/url] What!.
Colby Jaeden |
Homepage |
06.23.06 - 2:52 pm | #
One day I saw a monster in the sea, precise, it is a person. Long hair chaos, dumbfounded eyes with a fish fork in a trigeminal, suddenly, he jumped into the water. I swam to him; at last he was too hungry to fall down. I put him back to the mesos, and I went to look for the food for him. After a long time he awoke, he saw the food and ate the food right away without saying anything. I turned around he saw me, screaming to Mermaid.
mesos |
Homepage |
09.09.08 - 10:36 pm | #
In my heart I do not need so much silkroad online gold , without him, this game has no sense.
silkroad online gold |
Homepage |
09.23.08 - 1:39 am | #
He realized my ignorance, he was very grieved. Then he bought Asda Story money for me. I also ignored, I am such a person that never forgive and allow anyone to hurt me.
Asda Story money |
Homepage |
09.23.08 - 1:41 am | #
If you have mabinogi gold and cheap mabinog...You will experience a better life of the game!what are you waiting for?
elsie |
Homepage |
12.10.08 - 1:34 am | #
