President Obama: “Put Up or Shut the Fuck Up”
Those weren’t his exact words of course. But finally, members of Congress who claim they’re concerned about the deficit — especially when they’re talking about a program they don’t like — will have a chance to prove it.
This will separate the deficit hawks from the deficit chickenhawks.
This law (proposed by Obama) doesn’t give the president quite as much power as the line item veto, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998. But it’s close.
This new law would give the president up to two months — after signing a spending bill — to scrutinize the bill for anything deemed “pork.” The president would then send Congress a list of specific spending cuts from the bill. Congress would be required to hold an up-or-down vote to approve or disapprove the spending cuts.
The bill will probably be introduced later this week by House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D—S. Carolina). Nancy Pelosi’s response wasn’t exactly bursting with enthusiasm:
“We look forward to reviewing the president's proposal and working together to do what's right for our nation's fiscal health and security, now and in the future.”
Weepin’ John Boehner sobbed: “This is no substitute for a real budget that reins in overall federal spending.”
I’m personally in favor of this idea, even though it's a double-edged sword. It could be Our Worst Nightmare if we get another “cut taxes and triple the defense budget” dildo in the White House.
What say you?
Labels: deficit chickenhawk, deficit hawk, John Spratt, line item veto
posted by Tom Harper @ 1:24 PM
12 Comments:
It is a start. It also won't happen under Pelosi and Reid's stewardship of congress.
OK so now we have a "put up or shut up" proposal that isn't one of those designed to fail amendments from the old Contract with America. I mean any school kid taking Civics could have told you that term limits and line item veto would fail. Write bad law and blame it on the supreme court.
Both sides are getting their troops lined up on this one and no one does it better then the Republicans who every year seize the day by coming out with their list of pork before the Democrats do and coming out the party of fiscal responsibility.
OK so if this one passes legal muster I predict you will see total cooperation from the parties on this one - like a bipartisan professional wrestling match where they will both gouge, kick, and scratch each other (but no one will have a mark). Then both will sell the public some hype and get what they want. And if the Teaparty is true to their word (and not turn into a GOP mouth piece) and really dog them on this, they may get membership from areas they never expected - I wish they would drop the Confederate Flag at some of these rallies.
Erik
Why yes I'm Cynical, why do you ask?
It's a good idea but am not sure it will fly. I am despairing of anything changing in Washington these days. It is a mess.
what a bunch of incompetent, self centered, immature, idiots we've elected. The whole thing sounds like elementary school, to me. Why is it they can't simply do there jobs instead of wasting so damn much time and money? Are any of them truly concerned about this country and its citizens? or does it all boil down to "I win na,na,na,na,na, you lose." I'm sick of every one them.
never will happen...... not congress is going to give up this power.
there is only one solution - the following steops:
a.Term Limits
b.Publicly funded elections where every candidate gets the same amount of money
a shortened election cycle
house elections staggered
ALL congressional business and all votes are public record immediately ALL ALL ALL no exceptions. NONE NONE NONE - even national security
enough with wyoming having the same power as new york in the senate
the govt is set up for the people to lose and the self serving pricks to win
This sounds like the perfect way to streamline the legislation process.....
I'm with Cappy on this but Being as frustrated as I am I don't think anything will change.
In current circumstances this proposal has some appeal, but on closer scrutiny I can't say I'm in favor of it.
First, it encroaches on Congress' area of responsibility, giving the president power to second guess the legislators' work. Under the Constitution, he has to evaluate a whole bill, either signing it or vetoing it, or maybe doing a pocket veto.
Second, congressional leaders of the majority party make a deal with some minority members to get a budget or major spending bill passed. It does pass and goes to the White House. There, the president undoes the deal that got the minority members' votes. They feel they were set up or doublecrossed -- not good.
Third, as you mention, Tom, along comes another George W. Bush, and we're in big trouble.
Distributorcap, you touched on a sore spot. We have term limits: six years for senators, two years for representatives, four years (up to two times) for presidents. Anything else is unconstitutional.
And well it should be, because it arbitrarily denies voters who prefer an incumbent the chance to re-elect him or her, forcing them to not vote or vote for someone they like less.
Last but not least, to the extent term limits force more-rapid turnover, they also ensure more rookies dealing with gritty problems that require experience and sophistication. Plus, the more rookies you have at any one time, the more power unelected staffers and bureaucrats gain, as the rookies lean on them for direction and advice.
I can see some sense in making recall possible for legislators who pull stunts like Bunning putting a hold on extension of unemployment benefits, wasting tens or hundreds of millions so he could pose as a budget hawk, while people already hurting have to worry if they'll be able to put food on the table in a week or two.
Sophistication? In Congress? SWA, you been smokin' wacky tobaccy? :)
"Last but not least, to the extent term limits force more-rapid turnover, they also ensure more rookies dealing with gritty problems that require experience and sophistication. Plus, the more rookies you have at any one time, the more power unelected staffers and bureaucrats gain, as the rookies lean on them for direction and advice."
Which is exactly the situation we have in California.
What really upsets me is these "Riders" and other add-ons that have nothing to do with the present bill? Supposedly illegal under Congressional law (who's going to call them on it?) But that's where a lot of extra expense comes from. Giving any President little choice but to sign an important bill with someone's pork attached.
Erik
Thanks everyone for your comments. It's hard to tell whether this approach will work, but it's a start (maybe).
Post a Comment
<< Home