Posted on 10/21/2007 5:42:51 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Mitt Romney is an intelligent man who sometimes seems eager to find bushel baskets under which to hide his light. Romney faults Rudy Giuliani for opposing the presidential line-item veto. But Giuliani doesn't, unfortunately. The facts -- not that they loom large in this skirmish -- are:
When in 1997 Bill Clinton used the line-item veto, with which Congress had just armed him, to cancel $200 million for New York state, Giuliani harried Clinton all the way to the Supreme Court. It agreed with Giuliani that the line-item veto was an unconstitutional violation of the "presentment" clause. Today, Giuliani says, in defense of what does not need defending (his defense of the Constitution), he favors amending the Constitution to give presidents such a veto, thereby substantially augmenting what should not be further augmented -- presidential power.
...If Romney thinks a line-item veto would be a major force for federal frugality, he is mistaken. Gov. Reagan used his line-item veto to trim, on average, only about 2 percent from California's budgets. And much larger proportions of state budgets than of the federal budget are susceptible to such vetoes. Sixty-one percent of the federal budget goes to entitlements and to interest payments on government borrowing, neither of which can be vetoed. An additional 21 percent goes to defense and homeland security. Realistically, the line-item veto probably would be pertinent to less than 20 percent of the budget.
And the line-item veto might result in increased spending. Legislators would have even less conscience about packing the budget with pork, because they could get credit for putting in what presidents would be responsible for taking out. (The President, then, could bargain for pork)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’ve got a better idea: whoever proposes legislation that doesn’t pass loses his seat.
2% is not bad.
Not bad at all.
Constitutional Amendment to give the President a line item veto -- an excellent idea.
“...thereby substantially augmenting what should not be further augmented — presidential power.”
Haha. We’ll see how the WaPo feels about this if Hillary gets elected but BLOCKED in Congress on every single one of her initiatives.
Remember this line folks - you’ll be hearing a completely different tune if Hitlary makes the White House.
“I’ve got a better idea: whoever proposes legislation that doesn’t pass loses his seat.”
That’s actually one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard. Think of it. Democrats get a 51 seat majority. If the Republicans propose ANY legislation, the demonrats make sure it doesn’t pass just so they can get the guy kicked out of the Senate. So, the minority party would *never* propose a bill.
We’d see the worst partisan bickering of all time. Votes against bills just to hurt a particular congresscritter.
Back to the drawing board...
This is a good point -- I hadn't thought of that angle.
That said, the idea of Giuliani doing anything on principle to defend the Constitution is preposterous. It's as absurd as the 'toon's claim that he fought impeachment in order to defend the Constitution. George Will is a Giuliani shill.
I wasn’t cynical enough to be thinking of only THIS Congress, but of all time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.