Bring On the Line Item Veto
It just makes me sick hearing that the new budget is out and all the pork that has been packaged into it. Every budgetary cycle billions of dollars of yours and mine are spent for questionable items. Hey, I realize that these pet projects are really important to a few select individuals, but I want to see the money going to a greater good. The Line Item Veto Bill is a great step toward serving the citizens of the United States.
Our power brokers in DC swing deals not on merit but on pork. They suffer from the "What's in it for me?" disease. They imbed their little pet projects in unrelated overly popular bills knowing that they will get the money. You don't want to be caught voting against a bill for various reasons but your stuck voting for support for the very thing you stand against. Let's yank this political rug out from underneath our congressmen and return the power back to the people. How you may ask? We need some light shed on these acts and forcing debate and secondary voting on some of these contrivances will allow the people to see their representative in a true light. It will give them a chance to fairly judge and perhaps condemn in the next election cycle. Do you really think some of the crazy stuff that is going on now will escape scrutiny in the future with the Line Item Veto?
Article with greater detail
posted by ablur at 6/24/2006 07:58:00 PM
4 Comments:
The big problem is that so many 'earmarks' just do not show up in the actual budget language and have no one accountable for putting them in. I would prefer to have some accountability in that process. And in that writing I hit upon the one legal thing that really has not been considered: earmarks that do *not* show up on the President's desk for signature still, somehow, get funded.
Why does not the brave and bold President just say: If it does not show up as a justified line-item with clear explanation as to the value the Nation gets from it, then, as Head of Government, I shall return the money for non-line items or those not explained to the Treasury and not authorize work on such items.
If it isn't on the President's desk to be signed, then why is it still considered *legal* to have such programs and spend on them?
Line item veto on non-existant line items?
How about getting the line items clearly indicated first? And just return money otherwise as its use has not been clearly explained to the Head of Government. The President CAN do that... tomorrow or even today.
On the desk to be signed. Because if it isn't there it isn't *there* as part of the checks and balances. That would end much nonsense right from the start.
I like the idea, but what about Executive office check and balance? Not arguing here, just wondering out loud since that was the issue during the Reagan era. lgp
PS, thanks for commenting at FBO on Obama
oops
No problem Lyn. Thanks for stopping by.
We have got to remember that it is congress that holds the purse strings. The president has little to do with who gets money. He simply has the authority to sign or veto what the congress puts before him. The line item veto would actually create a system of checks and balances so real issues as well as financial pet projects could be treated separately even if they arrive linked at the hip. The line item veto allows them to be surgically separated and dealt with in an open fashion on the floor.
Post a Comment
<< Home