Redstate

I'm a fiscal conservative so my natural inclination is to hope that a line item veto would by its nature cause less money to be spent. These days I am not so certain. With the type of conservatives we have in office, I can see this primarily increasing the power of the executive.

The bush administration hasn't vetoed anything, and hasn't shown the slightest fiscal restraint. What I can see is the veto being used to threaten marginal projects of congressmen unless support is given to grandiose projects of the executive. Let us face facts are crop of congresscritters is very much a path of least resistance bunch and the path of least resistance in washington is to spend your money, certainly not restraint.

That said if we get a solid fiscal conservative in the whitehouse the line item veto will become a budget cutting chainsaw. The question is how many fiscal conservatives do we have to elect and how long will it take to undo the damage of a liberal spendthrift.

One would hope that the veto would be used to cut waste but it also go the other way. Lets say there is a provision in a bill to end some existing program or spending. THAT could also be cut.

I would think anything could be cut then. Illegal immigration bills, for example could keep the amnesty parts of it while selectively cutting border security.

A good reference would probably be to see how it has worked on the state level.

p.s. I havent read the SPECIFIC bill but theoretically that is what I see could happen.

That's why I think any line item veto has to be restricted to spending only.

Allowing the President to pick apart legislative compromise really would shift too much power over from the Congress.

What would the point of congress be then?  Certainly no point in any attempt at compromise to pass legislation, since anything added to get others on board could simply be stripped anyway.  For me, it's giving far to much power to the president.

The item gets voted on separately on its own merits, not vetoed. It's called "enhanced recision authority".

So the President could separate enforcement from the entire immigration bill and have enforcement voted on as a separate item. But he couldnt just throw it out.

This is an elegant solution to the separation of powers dilemma. The President can't slice and dice bills. But he can pull them apart so the items can be voted on their individual merits.

so, everything would have to be voted on anyway it just gives the Pres severability. Hmmmm. In the case of immigration reform that would actually be a bonus. and in the case of presenting the bridge to nowhere or a cowgirl museum, presenting it out there, naked, not buried in 600 pages, would be good too.

I know it seems to be a good think on the state level I am just wondering what downfalls there would be. I agree with Neil that it would be good to limit it to spending but not sure if that specifically could be done.

hmmm....

once introduced to the floor of a legislative chamber, it only takes a simple majority to override the President's rescission request.

Concerning a compromise Bill, this means the compromise has already been debated and voted on after conference by both chambers already, so any veto targeting an item central to the bill can be easily denied.

In the case of pork or selective tax incentives, which are almost always placed into a Bill by staff during revision or conference and are never debated, must be defended out in the open by it's author. This puts both the author's defense on record as well as the vote of every member concerning pork projects.

This would be delightful in that it destroys the anonymity of pork and favors, and exposes the porkers. Which is why this probably doesn't have a chance in Hades of passing.

I just read the report and it looks good. Especially because of the fact that it targets the items that are placed in conference where the majority of Congress cant even do anything about it either. Because of that it even makes Congress work more like I think most of us intended.

It seems to also target just expenditures and spending items. Since this is just the report and not the actual bill, I hope that is true.

Looks good. Now they just need to tack on Shadegg's "Enumerated Powers" bill onto this in conference and we're all set! :-)

Budget Chairman would be nice, but I'd like to see Paul as Speaker. He is an across-the-board conservative of a new generation. He is telegenic, articulate, and one of the few intellectuals in the House. He is also beyond reproach ethically. Plus he's got a hot wife and several cute little kids. He'd be perfect. Imagine him as the voice and face of the House. Now imagine the 2 or 3 leading contenders to replace Hastert who are far more likely than Paul to get the job.... and sink into depression.

Paul Ryan and Ander Crenshaw both voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.  Jim Ryun voted against it.  Paul Ryan and Ander Crenshaw voted for No Child Left Behind. Jim Ryun voted against it.  

These are the two prime examples of expanding the size and scope of the federal government where only Jim Ryun has had the courage to be one of us.

I can't help thinking that I would like for our current crop of Congresscritters to more resemble our founding fathers than mobsters.

The idea that they are using taxpayer money to bribe a congresscritter to support a bill that he wouldn't otherwise support offends me greatly.  If a bill to appropriate money for military funding or hurricane rebuilding is supportable, then support it regardless of whether or not that railroad for that particularly well-heeled and well-connected constituent gets moved.

But don't use my money to buy some guy's vote.  

Keirsten.  There is a reason why I noted "nearly" every big conservative fight.  And you are correct Jim Ryun has been a reliable conservative vote on many occaisions--far more so than Ander Crenshaw--especially on the big Medicare vote.  I should have made that more clear.  However, there is gravitas quota that needs to be filled when things are as bad as they are right now.  In my view, Ryun lacks that sort of heft and would be simply eaten alive by the Appropriations Committee and Leadership.    

So, when Jim Ryun was called into meetings with the Speaker and the President, and when the President called him in the middle of the night saying, Jim, I need your vote on this Medicare bill and he said "NO," was he eaten alive then?  You would agree there was more pressure exerted on that vote than any other vote in the last 6 years, right?  

That's ok, no one ever thought Ryun would be a world class runner because he was just a nice kid, but he wasn't tough enough.  No one thought he would win his primary in 1996 or the general election either because he didn't have enough heft or toughness and because he was way too conservative.

Paul Ryan may be more of a policy wonk, he's younger, and he certainly is a rising Republican star, but to say Jim Ryun would be "eaten alive" is probably unfair and certainly not backed up by any evidence.

I'd agree.  But I don't think line item veto power to the president is a good solution.  It would be a very powerful tool for overiding congress and just puts too much power in the hands of the president.

It may not eliminate pork, since there will have to be enough to get a majority to vote for it.  This just allows the president to pick and choose what pork he wants included in the meaningful bill, and what gets left out.  Knowing that the president has power over their pork, I would think it would basically turn congress into the president's rubber stamp.

Find me one link where Jim Ryun actually led conservatives into a spending fight with either the Appropriations Committee or Leadership or displayed a proficient knowledge of the Congressional spending process.  Has he ever introduced any major bills to reform the process or reduce spending? Or does he take a back seat and support the good work of others (which, let me stress, is perfectly fine)?  He has been in Congress for ten years now.  

Let me restate my point.  Jim Ryun is a great and honorable man.  Jim Ryun is a strong conservative.  Jim Ryun will have circles run around him as the Budget Chairman.    

The way that Congress is going, Paul may have to settle for ranking member...

Hey, Paul is a great guy, but for all your great comments about him, he has had the easy position of just casting a vote against growing government with the Medicare and No Child Left Behind votes. And he voted with leadership and the White House. And guess what? There are probably some other votes out there like that as well-that is why "most in leadership like him." Jim Ryun, even when pummeled by both leadership and the WH, voted against Medicare and NCLB. Yeah, you might say those are "backbench" votes, but those were intense votes and Jim Ryun toed the line, Paul didn't. And as for going toe to toe with leadership on big fights, don't think that because Ryun isn't hosting a presser right afterwards that he is not taking leadership on on the floor and behind the scenes.

Let's say you have a closely divided house, and a Liberal president.

Congress passes a tough spending package to cut the deficit.  

Then, it gets to the president's desk.

He then sends this request, or whatever it is, to Congress:  an up or down vote on taking away money from women/kids/black people/poor kids/underprivileged minorities from chicago/healthcare clinics in Boise/a new museum in St. Louis....

Then you end up with the same problems we have now--A Congressman in a close race can't vote "No" on something that only says, "How do you vote on whether to take money from poor kids?"  

Furthermore, let's say the president stepped up and said to Congress, "Hey, will you cut this part?"  Don't you think Congress will have a back room deal whereby they won't vote down any provision of a compromised bill?  Of course they'll do that.  It's just a big country club these days anyway.

I see this as bad all the way around.