JK ;). Food for thought.
Posted on 05/29/2015 2:54:52 PM PDT by cotton1706
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) -- Republican Gov. Paul LePage vowed Friday to veto every Democratic-sponsored bill that gets to his desk for the rest of the time he's in office unless the Legislature agrees to let residents weigh in on whether to get rid of the income tax.
"The Maine people deserve to have a say on the income tax and until they lift it, that's my leverage," LePage said during a wide-ranging and spirited news conference at the Blaine House. "And yes, is that politics? I'm playing their game. I'm finally learning to play the game of the politician."
LePage wants to pass a constitutional amendment — which would require voter approval — to prohibit the state from collecting the income tax beginning in 2020. But his effort is fiercely opposed by Democrats who question how the state would make up the $1.7 billion in annual general fund revenue that would disappear.
LePage called Democrats' actions this session "disturbing," ''repugnant" and "disgraceful." He pointed at Democratic House Leader Jeff McCabe, who attended the event, saying, "Shame on you."
After the governor's remarks, McCabe said LePage has come "a little bit unglued."
"I think back home that's the kind of politics that really upsets people," McCabe said. "That kind of ... name calling just isn't really appropriate when trying to work in divided government."
The Taxation Committee recently rejected LePage's constitutional amendment along party lines, and the measure has yet to come up for a vote in the Democratic-led House or Republican-controlled Senate. It will need two-thirds support of lawmakers in both chambers — the same support Democrats will need to override a possible flurry of vetoes by LePage.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Yes, I do, both for the POTUS and all 50 governors, although it’s more important at the federal level, and some governors already have it. As far as lib governors (or lib presidents, for that matter), I don’t want those, period, but having one of those is a risk I take in a democracy.
LaPaige is a hero for working to get rid of tax slavery.
I realize that this makes me an apostate in certain conservative circles, but I don’t like the line-item veto and am glad that it was found to violate the U.S. Constitution when applied at the federal level. (And the case was correctly decided, BTW, given that when Congress passes a bill the president may sign “it” or veto “it” (or pocket it and let the whole thing either become law or be vetoed depending on whether or not Congress has adjourned).)
Let’s say that Congress includes in the budget $10 million for a pilot program of abstinence-only sex education and $10 million for a sex-education program that includes discussion of contraception. With a line-item veto, Obama could strike out the abstinence-only program but sign the other sex-ed program that only was agreed to as a compromise. And now imagine if Obama could strip out all spending on border enforcement (but keep welfare payments) and line-item-veto aid to Israel’s military (but approve smaller amounts of “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinian Authority. The compromises forged by each house of Congress in the legislative process would be gone, substituted by the biases, whims and caprices of the president (who rarely will be someone like Coolidge or Reagan). And I believe that the same principles hold true when considering a state’s line-item veto.
True, a line-item veto could result in lower spending to the extent that a president (or givernor) would have signed the bill had it not been available but now can eliminate some line items. But it sometimes will be the case where a president or governor would have vetoed the whole kit and caboodle had the line-item veto not been available, but he takes the easy way out by just vetoing a few of the more distasteful items. And since legislatures know that the executive has a line-item veto, they will tend to approve higher budgets and pass the buck to the executive instead of ensuring that the budget is as trimmed as possible. And even if none of this is true and Congress passed the exact same budget that it would have anyhow, if you’ve got a $3.8 trillion budget, the fact that Obama could reduce it by, say, $100 billion by vetoing conservative projects will do very little to get deficits under control.
So I don’t think that a line-item veto is a good idea, and instead think that executives should exercise their constitutional authority by threatening to veto bills that don’t meet his approval, and vetoing them if the passed bills don’t meet his criteria.
Yes, Gov. LePage’s term ends after the 2018 elections, and he has expressed interest in running for Angus King’s Senate seat. I think that LePage would have an excellent chance of winning. If King stays an Independent, there will be a Democrat nominee that, even if he takes only 10%, would allow LePage to win with 45%. And if King were to switch officially to the RATs, he would lose a lot of the independent and moderate-Republican vote that allows him to win. Perhaps King will try to have it both ways à la Bernie Sanders and run in and win the RAT primary but then become an indie again so that no RAT is on the ballot, but I’m not sure if Maine law would permit that, and besides it would cause him to lose a lot of his right-of-center support.
Paul LePage would be the most conservative U.S. Senator from ME in decades, if not ever. And the other seat, the one for which RINO Susan Collins was reelected in 2014, could open up right after the 2018 elections if Collins runs for and wins the governorship (about which she has expressed interest). While I would precer that ME not have a liberal like Collins as governor, I think that I would take it if in return a conservative such as Congressman Bruce Poliquin is appointed to serve until the November 2020 election (where hopefully he’d have a leg up on the Democrat nominee). (Of course, if Collins wins the governorship, she would have to decide when to resign from the Senate, and depending on when she does her replacement could be named by Gov. LePage, the President of the Senate of ME that acts as gov. for a couple of days when LePage resigns early to take his Senate seat, or by Collins herself.)
JK ;). Food for thought.
So you think you’re smarter than Jefferson and Adams were? The 17th was a terrible idea. It should be repealed along with the 16th.
L
And this jagoff named Willie Delgado?
Well guess what pal? THEY CAN'T F...ING HAVE IT!!!!! It's MY VOTE. I WILL NOT give it up because some screwballs on the Internet think that's what James Madison would want!! Stick that in your craw, genius.
If we’re going to go strictly by the Constitution as originally written, we need to have the runner-up in Presidential elections serve as VP. The Constitution is, after all, utterly infallible.
I’m ok with that. Do you have a problem with the stated purpose of this forum?
L
You may not have a problem with that, but within 8 years of its being put into practice, there was a HUGE problem with it, and that’s why it was changed (otherwise you’d have had the loser candidate VP perpetually acting to undermine an administration). Same with the 17th Amendment. The method of selection of Senators was not working as it was intended by the mid-19th century, and hence was legally changed.
8 years of “practice” would put you right around the year 1802 or so. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the 17th Amendment.
The laws on abortion were legally changed. You ok with those too?
The 17th is a abomination and needs to be sent to the ash heap of history along with all the other stupid progressive ideas.
L
1797, actually (or to the point, the election of 1796). And, yes, it has everything to do with the 17th Amendment. It was an unworkable situation that had to be changed. You yourself stated you had no problem with the original method, which was proven to be flawed.
By your reckoning, there should not even be ANY Amendments whatsoever because the original was perfect and infallible. The Founders would set you straight on that conclusion.
Abortion is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. Roe was based on a false assumption made by the court that decided their ideology trumped the Constitution.
Same with most of the laws and rulings made by the courts on the appropriate placement of religion with respect to state institutions. The mandate of “shall not establish” has been perverted into having virtually all religion purged from the state and those institutions while blatantly ignoring the part that says “shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof”, which of course the true intent was explicitly not have the federal government designate a specific Christian sect as the national church with the President serving as the head of the church in the same manner of the King/Queen of England serving as theirs (but allowing individual states the right to designate a sect if they so chose).
I disagree vehemently that the 17th is “an abomination.” It’s been argued to bits here. The initial point of the election of Senators was meant to represent the interests of the individual state legislatures and that there would be a gentleman’s agreement that if there was a change in the ideology/party of said legislature and if said Senator would fail to follow their instructions on how to vote, they would step aside for someone who would.
When Senators discovered they were under no (Constitutional) obligation to do so and that 6 years meant 6 years and they would vote as they pleased, the system was broken. Therefore, the Senators would represent themselves and not necessarily their states’ best interests. From that point, Senators were either they themselves a “special interest”, or the puppet of a small cabal of individuals (again, not representing the state legislatures), bosses or what have you.
This joke of a system reached the point where the people decided this failed method of choosing Senators had to go, and was duly ratified by the state legislatures (who had the choice of either doing just that or getting thrown out in favor of another group that would).
The notion of returning the power to corrupted state legislatures (especially those of endless Democrat regimes) is ludicrous and (to quote you) an abomination whose idea ought to be sent to the ash heap of history.
“Abortion is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. Roe was based on a false assumption made by the court that decided their ideology trumped the Constitution.”
It’s “settled law”. Right?
The 17th is abomination. It was pushed by the Progressive movement. Anyone defending it is a Progressive Fabian Socialist.
Period.
L
Wrong.
"The 17th is abomination."
Wrong.
"It was pushed by the Progressive movement. Anyone defending it is a Progressive Fabian Socialist."
Wrong.
Lurker, it's clear you refuse to listen to reason or the history behind the 17th and hump a talking point over and over again as if it were remotely correct (hint: it's not). I don't believe you read anything I wrote, which means you're just wasting my time. Frankly, this agenda being pushed to enhance the power of corrupt legislative leaders, to make U.S. Senators even more unaccountable for their actions and diminish our national government even further (as if such a thing were possible, yet you anti-17thers are doing just that) is trolling. Period.
Do you think you’re smarter than James Madison? Huh huh? The stated purpose of this website is to build a time machine, doncha know? Baby Killer!! You fabian baby killer!!
Talk about weak sauce.
17th Amendment=Woodrow Wilson, Fabian Socialist.
Deal with it. The shoe fits. Wear it.
L
17th Amendment = Correcting a wrong.
Anti-17thers = Big Gubmint Trolls.
NEXT !
We can agree to disagree then. The idea of our Republic is that the people (in the form of statehouses and Congress) write the bills, the executive signs them into law. Allowing a single person to remove whichever parts of a bill they want is a really, really bad idea. Also, there’s no way this power would stop at “remove”. Eventually that power would grow into “change” or “add”.
No, if that were the case, he’d just start line-item veto right now. What you’re saying is nonsense.
Couldn’t disagree with you more, friend. The one thing we know for sure about the Left is they ALWAYS want more power. Period. They have learned to go slowly in obtaining it rather than rushing straight toward it but make no mistake - give them a line-item veto and before long they’ll be talking about how “it just makes sense to expand blah blah blah...”
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.