Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

One of the Democrat's campaign promises last fall was that there would be a "five-day workweek". Which to me means they'd attend to the business placed before them and not take undue amounts of time off like their predecessors had. (Yes, I disagree with the actions of the Republican-controlled Congress in that way. Faint.)

"Today, GOP Leaders from both chambers urged Speaker Pelosi to call the House back into session immediately to finish its work on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops. Speaker Pelosi neglected to appoint House conferees before the two-week break, further delaying negotiations on a final bill. The joint letter to Pelosi is attached. Text follows: "

link

1. An Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops in Iraq is needed.

2. Democrats submit a bill with millions of dollars earmarked for things like peanut farming. Can you say pork?

3. President Bush refuses to sign the bill and demands that a bill without all the pork is submitted.

4. Nancy Pelosi takes off for Syria.

6. Nancy Pelosi returns from Syria.

7. Still no bill.

Uh.... remember that part about supporting the troops, Democrats?

_________________

Since when was it about the unnecessary spending? The President rejected the bill because of the part about troop funding, now the Democrats are trying to find a compromise.

_________________

If you're attempting to start an argument, I question your choice to make such an outlandish statement. Bush vetoed the bill because it funded the troops?

This elicits more of a head-scratching response than an angry one.

Just a hint.

_________________

Didn't Bush pretty much say that he vetoed it because of the pork it contained?

That pork actually disgusted me because I fear it was in there for one of two reasons; 1: "I'll put this in here because I REALLY want it, and if someone votes against, I'll say they don't support the troops." or 2: "I don't want this funding to go through because I hate the war. I'll put in a bunch of stupid crap that anyone in their right mind would vote against so I can end this war."

Doesn't the president have the power to veto certain parts of bills (eg. Line Item Veto) or did that get shot down?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

If what I remember from government class last year is true, then no, Bush doesn't have Line Item Veto powers. The presidency used to have that ability, but congress got rid of it, and many presidents have tried to get it reinstated, because it's a very conveinient thing for them to have, but also very easy to abuse, so that is a tricky argument in and of itself. Sound right anyone?

_________________

True, but a Line Item Veto would allow the president to approve beneficial parts of a bill, while the unnecessary or even unwanted parts of a bill would be forced back into Congress for more consideration. Troop support - Yes. Peanut Subsidies - back to the House.

And if something the president vetoed was necessary or beneficial, then the House and Senate could simply vote it through with enough of a majority. Not only that, but to veto such an item would only make the president look bad in the end.

I feel similarly that often times unrelated "pork" is attached to necessary items only for political sake - either to push through things that ought not be approved, or to gum up the due process in order to make the president look bad. I think a line item veto would eliminate that tremendously.

_________________

It IS easy to abuse, but that's why you give congress an override power, like they have for a full veto.
Even with a veto check, there's plenty of pork prevention to be had with a line item veto. That's another subject, though, so

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

For the record, the only president to hold line item veto powers was Bill Clinton, when Congress (the Republican dominated Congress, mind you) enacted the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. Two years later, the Supreme Court determined that giving the president line item powers violated the Presentment Clause in Article One of the Constitution, and thus the act was shot down. The general consensus was that giving the president the line item veto consolidates too much influence in his hands and undermines the separation of powers.

Back to topic, here's a quick review for those of you unfamiliar with the overarching issue: Congress has passed a bill earmarking $124 billion for the war in Iraq, in addition to the $70 billion that's already been approved. This new bill, however, also calls for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops between now and March of next year, although a reduced contingent would remain after that date. Also included in the bill are a couple of billion dollars for farm subsidies and small business grants. (Bills that divert funds in various unrelated directions are typical in Washington.)

As I understand it Bush's major objection to the bill is the timeline for troop withdrawal that it sets, thus his veto threat. The issue isn't so much about pork barrel spending as it is about congressional vs. presidential authority. It's an easy story for either side to spin. Let's try it out:

Congressional spin: The majority of the American people are against this war and they want the troops out of Iraq. We are trying to set a timetable to do just that. The president obstinately refuses to enact the will of the people so we are stepping in. This wouldn't be an issue if the president would just sign the bill we've already passed. The president is risking the troops' lives by being ornery about this.

Presidential spin: Whatever you think of the war, our troops are fighting it right now, and our first priority is to make sure they are properly funded. Congress is willing to flout that in order to force the administration's hand on this issue. They knew I wouldn't sign this bill, but they voted it in anyway. Congress is risking the troops' lives by being ornery about this.

Which view is correct? Both are...after a fashion, at least. (Which one you personally prefer likely depends on your political preconceptions.) It's a pretty good illustration of how the true loser in any tug-of-war is always the rope. That's how our government works, however.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

I gotta concur with Mike here. Both parties have good reason for what they're trying to do. The troops shouldn't remain in Iraq any longer than is necessary, but, for the time being, it is necessary: a premature withdrawal will only harm the situation. However, both parties are going about their goals in ways that are entirely political, rather than working together for some consensus and a solution that will actually work.

_________________

Wow, excellent post, Mike. I mean it. I did more research and found that you're correct; Bush didn't accept the bill more for the fact that it had a troop withdrawal date attached to it than that it included millions of dollars in pork barrel spending. My bad.

I do personally feel, however, that if the Democrats want to get the troops out of Iraq, that issue should be dealt with as a separate issue. Funding the troops NOW is the priority; if you want them out by August, then go about it in a different way.

_________________

I hope you'd hold all politicians, regardless of political party, by the same standards of single-issue bills, then.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Fair enough, and I do.

_________________

Line Item Veto (LIV), Pork Barrel (PB), Distinct "Billing" (DB), Politics In Washington (PIW)?... that's where all this stuff belongs, friends. Washington is the R&P of the US political universe; only in this case it would be equal to [R&P.plus.Stu.type.auθōrētā]. Bills -- important ones -- sometimes get passed because a few votes are bought by promises/allowances to send something home =PB. That was part of what happened here, lots of the votes got bought by more-than-usual PB inclusions; though that is perhaps a little presumptuous. DB would mean nothing ever gets sent home, and nobody'd get re-elected; who wants to vote for someone ELSE's PB? Since congress makes the law they follow, they'd change back DB quick-quick, once the attrition started mounting. And LIV would have substantially the same effect, only with bias to the sitting President's politics -- thus the idea that it would unsettle the balance of powers. PIW will happen -- and should. Just that: I don't want it too close to me. Good discussion.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.