Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush pushes for spending control
CNN ^ | Janu8ary 3, 2007

Posted on 01/03/2007 7:46:07 AM PST by KantianBurke

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday asked the Democratic-controlled Congress to give the White House line-item veto power to control spending.

As he prepares to deal with an opposition Congress for the first time, Bush is also asking lawmakers to extend tax cuts.

Bush made the requests in a Rose Garden statement and in an opinion column published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.

The line-item veto would allow the president to cut specific spending from legislation without vetoing the entire bill.

In the opinion piece, Bush warned that the Democrat-controlled Congress risks stalemate if it resorts to "politics as usual" and tries to "pass bills that are simply political statements."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; lineitemveto; spending
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-149 next last
To: KantianBurke

Fer cryin' out loud, George... There are some subjects you should just keep your mouth shut about. Right now, spending is one of them.


61 posted on 01/03/2007 8:39:45 AM PST by TChris (We scoff at honor and are shocked to find traitors among us. - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Forget it .. you have not read my posts or the points I made

I have responded to them in tremendous detail, with cites and facts. You simply don't want to be bothered by the facts as you poke your fingers into your ears, scrunch shut your eyes and start yelling "Bush basher!" at those making valid criticisms and comments about this subject.

Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. He has proposed large spending increases of his own. Logic dictates that he should start doing the former and stop doing the latter before calling for new line-item veto powers that already have been shot down by SCOTUS.

To sane people, that indicates he simply is not being serious here. Nor are you.

62 posted on 01/03/2007 8:40:14 AM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

Dubya was for big spending before he was against it.


63 posted on 01/03/2007 8:40:53 AM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Current Occupant
This one is based on the final action of congress and likely the SCOTUS would find it constitutional.

That is not correct. The constitution calls for a bill to be presented to the prez for signature or veto - or no action:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it

There is nothing there about line-item vetoes. It would take an Amendment to create this process.

64 posted on 01/03/2007 8:43:45 AM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
This is funny. If President Bush believes he will get a line item veto out of his bunch he has totally lost his mind.

So, for six years with a repub congress no veto's whatsoever; incoming dem congress, he wants to get line item power?

Did W go back to smoking crack or something?

65 posted on 01/03/2007 8:44:09 AM PST by AFreeBird (If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Current Occupant
This one is based on the final action of congress and likely the SCOTUS would find it constitutional.

Exactly .. it's all in the wording and the procedures

Like the abortion Bills .. if Congress would put in the "health of the mother" .. then the SCOTUS wouldn't knock down so many Abortion Bills

66 posted on 01/03/2007 8:44:47 AM PST by Mo1 (the violence will stop when US politicians step up to the plate and act united for victory and peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"I have responded to them in tremendous detail, with cites and facts. You simply don't want to be bothered by the facts as you poke your fingers into your ears, scrunch shut your eyes and start yelling "Bush basher!" at those making valid criticisms and comments about this subject."




http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761784/posts?page=60#60


67 posted on 01/03/2007 8:46:34 AM PST by Mo1 (the violence will stop when US politicians step up to the plate and act united for victory and peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

I think the reasoning used by the USSC in overturning line item veto is that it gave the President what amounted to the power to rewrite legislation presented to him by Congress. Since the Constitution doesn't give the executive branch power to write legislation, they overturned it. IMHO, that was the right decision.

Interestingly, if memory serves, the constitution of the Confederate States of America, 1861, did give the exectutive branch a line item veto.


68 posted on 01/03/2007 8:46:52 AM PST by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevao

"Dubya was for big spending before he was against it."

You're right! That war on Terrorism should have been funded by raising our Taxes, RIGHT?


69 posted on 01/03/2007 8:47:25 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (MAYNARD BLAZEJEWSKI For President '08 (The tird party choice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

LOL! The president must think we are stupid indeed...


70 posted on 01/03/2007 8:49:11 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I guess it's easier to bash him.

No, considering that he did absolutely nothing about it when he had Republican majorities in both houses it's appropriate to doubt his sincerity.

71 posted on 01/03/2007 8:50:55 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

So you don't really have anything? I thought you would at least explain why President Bush has signed so many big spending bills and has failed to veto ANY of them. His only veto was for philosophical reasons, IIRC.


72 posted on 01/03/2007 8:51:19 AM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kevao

lol!


73 posted on 01/03/2007 8:52:36 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke


Carrot Top sez: Be calm and quiet in large crowds.
74 posted on 01/03/2007 8:52:39 AM PST by sully777 (You have flies in your eyes--Catch-22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

Although it is laughable, it also makes you sad to see Bush reduced to such transparent political gimmicks as this one.


75 posted on 01/03/2007 8:52:39 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

LOL.


76 posted on 01/03/2007 8:52:46 AM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; ...
Funny headline alert. :)





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
77 posted on 01/03/2007 8:55:10 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I truly believe that in about 2007, and the Dems take the White House as well as even more seats, you will not foster so much hate for this honorable and decent man.
78 posted on 01/03/2007 8:56:27 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (MAYNARD BLAZEJEWSKI For President '08 (The "true" Conservative choice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
That war on Terrorism should have been funded by raising our Taxes, RIGHT?

And it will be, eventually....

Actually, that war on terrorism would best be funded with all those tax dollars squandered on the prescription drug program.

79 posted on 01/03/2007 8:57:56 AM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
considering that he did absolutely nothing about it when he had Republican majorities in both houses it's appropriate to doubt his sincerity.

He didn't HAVE anything; those guys spent these last six years "positioning" themselves for their re-election.

80 posted on 01/03/2007 8:58:35 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson