Give Bush more power? Virginia Republicans say yes; Virginia Democrats say NO!
By: Dan
Published On: 6/27/2006 3:37:20 PM
In a frightening turn of events, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on June 22nd to give President Bush the right to use a line-item veto. A line-item veto allows the President to nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package. President Clinton was given this ability in 1996 to help limit the federal deficit, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1998. It was one thing to give President Clinton this power +óGé¼GÇ£ at least he was able to make smart budgetary decisions +óGé¼GÇ£ but giving President Bush this power is completely unwarranted. For one thing, a President should only get this power by earning a reputation for fiscal discipline. However, after 5 years in office (and a $3 trillion addition to our National debt) can we really trust Bush with more power over how to spend the Government+óGé¼Gäós money?
What kind of Congressman would reward this failure, you ask?
Every Republican Congressman in Virginia!
Yes, even "fake-moderate" Tom Davis happily joined Virginia+óGé¼Gäós 7 other Republican Congressmen to give Bush even more power to cut social programs, while protecting his precious tax cuts, as America hurdles down into fiscal ruin. Sadly, 35 House Democrats somehow failed to screw their heads on correctly, and disgracefully followed these rubber-stamp Republicans to give the White House what it wanted. However, Congressman Rick Boucher, Congressman Jim Moran, and Congressman Bobby Scott stood proudly against the legislation. For this, they should all be commended.
The measure will not pass without the support of the U.S. Senate. However, I doubt we can count on John Warner or George Allen to save us from more illogical budget decisions from an Administration mad with power.
Source
Comments
COMMENT HIDDEN (Lewis Armistead - 6/27/2006 4:45:00 PM)
I disagree (Dan - 6/27/2006 5:09:28 PM)
This President does NOT deserve this right.
A line item veto destroys the balance of power (Andrea Chamblee - 6/28/2006 11:32:13 PM)
The budget is the result of compromise -- at least usually, that is, before
this Congress. Grants of earmarks based on seniority and not need should be done away with because they are irresponsible. However, going so far as a line item veto would mean there is no incentive for the necessary give and take from all members of Congress that produces a budget. For example, why should a Democrat agree to give $X more to defense in exchange for $Y for Head Start if Head Start is just going to be cut by the President?
Clearly, a line item veto is not what the Constitution intended. Practically, Congress would never be able to agree on a budget if their agreements need not be honored. They have hard enough time already.
This is not the same kind of line-item veto Clinton had. (summercat - 6/27/2006 4:49:34 PM)
That one vetoed budget items with the same force as a veto of a bill, I think--would have needed 2/3 majority to override, if it could have been overridden at all. This one simply sends vetoed items back to Congress for reconsideration, where they will simply be passed again--so it is, in effect, meaningless, imo.
COMMENT HIDDEN (Lewis Armistead - 6/27/2006 5:16:17 PM)
Pork Barrel (Dan - 6/27/2006 5:33:31 PM)
I agree that pork barrel projects are a problem, but at this time, why allow the KING of pork barrel spending (President Bush) more power to take from the poor and give to the rich? If he gets this power he will cut alternative energy programs (to save his oil buddies) and cut entitlement programs (to save his tax cuts). Can we both agree this is the most backward, heartless Administration in recent times? These people WANT government to fail. Listen to Grover Norquist some time. They WANT huge deficits. They want failed policy.
Bush deserves NO MORE power than he already has. He is wrecking this country by recklessly risking our future to pursue some twisted ideology that assumes America has no moral responsibility in the world but to secure our own resources (oil, cheap goods, etc.) I'd take pork barrel Congressional spending over any power we could give to GWB.
For the record, I am an experienced policy person, so I am not ignorant on this subject.
COMMENT HIDDEN (Lewis Armistead - 6/27/2006 5:40:28 PM)
I agree on the term limits (Dan - 6/27/2006 5:57:43 PM)
We should DEFINTELY have Congressional term limits. I agree with Tom Davis on his 6-term limit. Too bad he doesn't have the integrity or decency to follow it.
COMMENT HIDDEN (Lewis Armistead - 6/27/2006 6:17:19 PM)
Have you seen Tom Davis' voting record? (Dan - 6/27/2006 8:09:58 PM)
The guy has become a rubber stamp for Bush and the fossil fuel industry. We'd be better off with a Democratic majority where we can actually have some OVERSIGHT. If you want to support Tom Davis that is fine, but don't pretend to be a Democrat if you have a problem with Andy Hurst. I'd rather have a GOOD Representative with DEMOCRATIC values, than a conservative with seniority who has supported the failed policies of the Bush Administration during the past 5 years. Tom Davis is making things worse - it doesn't matter how many "favors" he is owed because of his seniority. Besides, there is a 98% incumbency rate in Congress. How is the country doing with that?
Bush and more fiscal power, ugghhh (bladerunner - 6/27/2006 8:42:42 PM)
Giving Bush that power is unbelievable. It's pretty well accepted that Bush is trying to break the country finacially so all the programs and services that his fundamentalist base don't like will wilt. And Tommy Davis just gave more ammo to Andy Hurst in his quest to represent the 11th District in Congress. (If you haven't heard or been around Andy Hurst --he's the real deal, and you'll be impressed) Anyway I guess the GOP figure their best chance is to stick with Bush all the way to the end. That being the case I want to see Bush campaigning side by side with Tommy Davis in the next few months. If not, Tommy Davis has no cahonas.
Absolutely (Dan - 6/27/2006 9:09:59 PM)
Andy Hurst or Tom Davis? The choice is obvious. Screw seniority. Andy is twice the man Tom Davis is.
Tom Davis is no Moderate (Andrea Chamblee - 6/28/2006 11:22:59 PM)
Davis votes with Bush 89% of the time. He voted with Tom DeLay 88% of the time. He votes the Republican party line except for a few throw-away votes where he has party permission so that he can keep his seat. Stem cell funding is an example; as long as there are not eough votes to pass it, the Republicans let a few vulnerable Representatives vote off the party line without being punished by a "Hammer." DC voting is another example of the Party letting him play of the grid; his latest bill is not even on the 2006 agenda of the Rules Committee. He voted for the Paris Hilton tax break, the Bush budget, the Exxon-Mobil Oil Act, and more. His voting record is here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/d000136/key-votes/