Posted on 01/26/2010 12:05:08 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are jumping on the spending freeze bandwagon, calling on Congress to flatline discretionary spending—and they issued a challenge to the president the day after the White House proposed its own three-year budget freeze.
"If the president is serious—and I believe he is—he should also say tomorrow night he will veto the first appropriations bill that comes to his desk that has an earmark on it," McCain said.
The Fiscal Freeze Act of 2010, which Bayh and McCain hope to introduce to the Senate later this week, includes provisions to install a spending freeze and earmark moratorium until the deficit is eliminated, enforce the Congressional budget resolution as binding law and even create a constitutionally viable line-item veto to "give the President power to strike out wasteful earmarks and other extraneous spending items."
Both McCain and Bayh are up for re-election this year.
The senators’ announcement comes after a failed 53-46 roll call vote on creating a statutory deficit commission amendment and in advance of Wednesday's State of the Union address, when Obama plans to announce his spending freeze on non security spending.
When asked about his take on Obama's about-face on spending caps — and the president's accusation when he was a candidate that McCain was out-of-touch for suggesting just such a spending freeze — McCain commended the President's recent actions while gently chiding his rhetoric on the trail.
"I think the president understands now how serious this problem is, that it requires hatchets and scalpels. It requires a hatchet to get the budget under control and it requires a scalpel to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending," McCain said. "So I appreciate the fact that the president has changed his position since the campaign."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Oh well, that would have been the tie breaker on which one is more liberal ;-)
Hey, if this pres. gets the line item veto, then the rest of them get it, too. Isn’t that a good thing?
“This is grandstanding.”
Effective grandstanding.
McCain proves once again, he is just as dumb as Obama on issues related to the Constitution.
Hope JD sends this bum packing.
McCain is either a traitor to the American citizen/taxpayer, or a complete idiot. I don't know which.
Exactly why Sarah Palin is campaigning for him is another question altogether. From what I can tell, she'd be doing better to campaign for his primary opponent, J. D. Hayworth.
JMHO FWIW.
What part of the line item veto do you believe only applies to earmarks?
Do you suppose DEFENSE SPENDING IS EXCLUDED?
Yes, it has been ruled unconstitutional. Mark Levin and his group looked into this extensively and concluded that that was a correct decision.
This is grandstanding.
I just want McCain gone, for all the reasons I am sure you are well aware of.
Not this FReeper. The Supremes said it was unconstitutional. I generally despise the men in office, but I love the constitution of the United States.
Fixed that for you. The Democrats held the House throughout President Reagan's administration.
He seems to have multiple personality disorder—sometimes he is tough on dear leader and acts like a conservative, then other times he is possessed by a RINO!
Um no, it's bad and it's unconstitutional. Only the House of Representatives has the ability to propose spending.
The real problems are votes before anyone has read the bill and omnibus bills in general. Sadly, both of those went by the wayside post the 1994 revolution.
To use as grim an example as I can think of ... line item veto is like spanking your child after he has run out into the street after a ball and been killed by a car. Budgeting is the House of Reps responsibility.
I believe that the problem with McCain is that he is unprincipled and not really very smart. And he believes that government can and should be bigger because it makes him more powerful.
Ahem
The 1986 bill was the Coats-McCain bill.
He was one of the primary sponsors and had been since Reagan had asked for it in his 1986 State of the Union Address.
And tonight I ask you to give me what 43 Governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat. This authority would not give me any monopoly power, but simply prevent spending measures from sneaking through that could not pass on their own merit.
After the 1996 law was nullified by the Supreme Court, McCain attempted to resurrect it with versions that met their objections but was stopped by inner city Southern Senators with a vested interest in keeping the earmarks.
We do not usually defer to their learned judgment on these matters.
The topic being the proposed NEW legislation, no doubt it would attempt to skirt the issues that the SCOTUS determined were unconstitutional.
Based upon the assumption that this new legislation would be found to be constitutional, are we supposed to be against it because it would be in the hands of 0bama, but would support it if it would have been used by Bush?
My point is that short term occupancy of the constitutional position should not determine the ideological outlook of the proper role and function of that position.
When Bush was presiding over a rather expansive view of the power of the executive branch I long cautioned “don't trust Bush with any power you wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton with”. It turned out to be 0bama, but the point stands none the less potent for that.
Jeepers. Thanks for the ping, dearest sister in Christ!
say it aint so...oh wait...
I did the same thing. Nine years ago the scariest prospect was that of a President Hillary!. Odd how things change.
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.