Line Item Veto

• CenterBHSFan

  

  Was talking about this with my stepfather just a little bit ago. We both agree that America desperately needs to control spending and this would be one of the tools to seek relief.
  The problem is, the risk of Presidents being able to use this for "attacks" against political enemies. But then again, there are ways/processes for Congress to curtail that from happening. And it can certainly be amended later on if this sort of out of control behavior happens.
  
  If it were to be put up to a national vote, I would vote for it.
  
  What do you think?
• IggyPride00

  

  It would make it completely impossible to govern. It is bad now, but adding that layer in will cripple the government. Some people think that is a good thing, but it will open up a level of disfunction the likes of which we have never seen if the President had that type of unilateral power. The parties have moved so far right and left respectively that it would be just an extension of the automatic filibuster that now exists on almost all legislation. Republicans eliminating all the Democrat priorities and Democrats doing the same to Republican priorities. Our political parties, and by extension the President, are frankly not mature enough to handle something that could potentially wield such power.
• isadore

  All but seven US states have some form of line-item veto.
  http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/BudgetTax/GubernatorialVetoAuthoritywithRespecttoMajor/tabid/12640/Default.aspx
  each of these states have both a Democratic and Republican Party just like on the national level. And do not seemingly have a significantly higher maturity level than the members of the national government.
  It would be a useful tool in budget making.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I voted for it.
  
  And, even though I know there would be drawbacks from it, it would be the only semi-immediate relief valve that we could have. Yeah, sure, our government might right itself 20, 40, 50, 100 years from now - but we're in trouble yesterday. And, I don't see how any sort of sweeping change to our out of control spending could happen on a realistic basis anyway. So, this tool would at least initiate baby steps. And perhaps our congressmen would "learn" not to even bother with pork. (haha - I know right?)
  
  Congress holds the purse and look what a mess they've made of it. At the end of the day, even with including stagnation, how could it be any worse than the finger pointing and blame games that already go on?
• fan_from_texas

  There are significant constitutional hurdles, even with crafty drafting. Shouldn't anyone who rallies to the constitution oppose the line item veto on purpose? If we want it, let's amend the constitution and change the legislative process. But don't start bending the constitution even more to suit the need of the moment.
• majorspark

  

  I agree with Iggy on this one. Although I find the crippling of the federal government quite enticing, This would place too much power in the hands of the executive branch. Basically giving the executive branch legislative authority. It would give the president the closest thing to dictatorial power this country has ever seen. It would currently violate the constitution and thus need an amendment to have legal authority. Trust me I despise the bullshit congress attaches to bills with a fervent passion, but placing this power in the hands of the executive is not the answer.
  
  As for finding away to deal with the federal government's spending problem, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget would be the way to go. The amendment would include exemptions for wartime when congress declares war, and in national emergencies or unusual economic hardship when congress deems deficit spending essential with a 2/3 majority of both houses.
  
  A balanced budget amendment would make deficit spending possible, but more difficult, and less reckless. Federal restraint when it comes to spending is literally impossible under the current system. The current political climate simply will not allow it. We need the force of constitutional law to trump this now unbridled federal power. Under such an amendment, the pain of increased spending could not be deferred to future generations by having the government borrow money. The pain would have to be faced immediately via a tax increase or spending cuts by the present generation.
• IggyPride00

  

  A balanced budget amendment would make deficit spending possible, but more difficult, and less reckless.

  Conservatives and liberals are united in their stand against a balanced budget amendment.
  
  Such an amendment would effectively eliminate the ability of the federal government to ever cut taxes again, which is the central and only tenenant of conservatives fiscal polcy.
  
  On the other hand liberals would never go for something that would constrain their ability to spend with no questions asked.
  
  I mean just imagine what this country would be like with no FDR or Reagan, as both would have had their economic policies castrated by an amendment like this. They are the patron saint of their respective parties, debt spending is at the core of their very being.
  
  It would be rather interesting though to see what the parties would campaign on knowing that spending and tax cuts is out the window because of a BBA. It seems like sometimes their ideas start and stop at those 2 things, so maybe not being able to use them as a crutch would be a good thing after all as it would force people to get creative to solve our fiscal problems.
• majorspark

  

  IggyPride00;397846 wrote:Conservatives and liberals are united in their stand against a balanced budget amendment.
  
  Such an amendment would effectively eliminate the ability of the federal government to ever cut taxes again, which is the central and only tenenant of conservatives fiscal polcy.
  
  On the other hand liberals would never go for something that would constrain their ability to spend with no questions asked.
  
  I mean just imagine what this country would be like with no FDR or Reagan, as both would have had their economic policies castrated by an amendment like this. They are the patron saint of their respective parties, debt spending is at the core of their very being.
  
  It would be rather interesting though to see what the parties would campaign on knowing that spending and tax cuts is out the window because of a BBA. It seems like sometimes their ideas start and stop at those 2 things, so maybe not being able to use them as a crutch would be a good thing after all as it would force people to get creative to solve our fiscal problems.

  
  I agree and I realize this is nothing more at this point than a political wet dream.