Rep. Chris Cox: Pursue a Veto Strategy

Human Events ^ | 2/6/04 | Rep. Chris Cox

[Peach]

I like it. It's a plan I can support.

[VRW Conspirator]

Bump

[VRW Conspirator]

We need...The Spending Control Amendment that I will soon introduce...

Yeah, before we reduce the size of government or after?

[Grit]

Ditto that.

[marlon]

I think it's a great plan and I hope Bush embraces it publically.

[RJCogburn]

In 1995, the first year of the Republican House majority, Congress actually cut discretionary spending

It's a lot easier to say "no" to a dem president. It is harder to say "no" to your own guy.

A key part of the argument for electing a dem president.

[Alberta's Child]

Chris Cox is full of crap. He voted in favor of the two most idiotic "big government" bills last year -- the Medicare prescription drug bill and the national "Do Not Call" legislation.

In addition, you can go to his website and see him brag about all of the "goodies" that he's brought home to his district in California.

With all due respect, Mr. Cox -- You're part of the freakin' problem.

[dixierat22]

It's unlikely that the Pres will support this. He has shown that he likes spending our money.

[pogo101]

Chris Cox is full of crap. He voted in favor of the two most idiotic "big government" bills last year -- the Medicare prescription drug bill and the national "Do Not Call" legislation.

In addition, you can go to his website and see him brag about all of the "goodies" that he's brought home to his district in California.

With all due respect, Mr. Cox -- You're part of the freakin' problem.

You're right that he could do better and that he has some seemingly hypocritical or contradictory stances. But yours is not really a post that is responsive to the subject at hand, namely Cox's current proposals. It's fine to point out what mistakes he's made, in other words, but all you're doing is trashing the guy without saying one word about the current topic.

Plus, you're giving a rather one-sided view. He's one of the National Taxpayers Union's most recent "Taxpayers' Friend Award" winners (24th best in the House; score 64%; grade "A"). (Link)

His bill to put a permanent end to the estate (death) tax, HR 51, is featured on the National Tax Limitation Committee's front page.

His currently-posted rating by Citizens Against Government Waste is a 91, lifetime 89. (Those only go through 2001, so it is fair to say that any update of them will reflect a somewhat lower score through 2003.)

So don't just post "He's full of crap" and, apparently for that reason, just reject the current proposal out of hand. As "bad" as you say he is, there are only a few dozen who are better in the House.

[Alberta's Child]

Fine. Instead of recommending a plan like that, I think Rep. Cox should try the following three-part plan that will be far more effective in solving the problem:

1. No more income tax witholding from paychecks. All income taxes are to be paid in their entirety when a tax return is filed.

2. The deadline for submitting tax returns is hereby changed from April 15th to the Monday in November immediately preceding Election Day.

3. Congress must submit a balanced budget to the President every year. If Congress ever submits a budget in which the government's spending exceeds the government's revenues, every member of Congress (including those who didn't vote for it) will spend that entire fiscal year in a Federal prison, without receiving any compensation for their work.

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

[comebacknewt]

1 and 2 are kind of nutty, but 3 makes a lot of sense. I hope we get a constitutional amendment on that one.

[thoughtomator]

I like #2... I think it's brilliant, actually.

[MamaLucci]

What's "nutty" about forcing the average stupid american to realize just
how much their government is stealing from taxing them,
and doing it right before election time?

[Mr. Jeeves]

A veto strategy would require only one-third of the Congress and the President working together to control spending.

Republican Senate response: "Are you crazy? We can't do that! The Democrats and the media might call us mean-spirited!"

[RJCogburn]

#1 is the best. People would perhaps realize how much they pay in taxes instead of the idiotic thinking that "I'm getting money back from the government this year".

[WOSG]

Great Plan.

The key is to keep spending growth at 0%. grow it less than the economy.

We should also support the Bush proposal to put spending limits into law.

[WOSG]

5. Even before we complete the process of amending the Constitution, we need to enact legislation to put enforcement teeth in our budget process. The budget should be an enforceable law, not a non-binding resolution. To enforce budget limits, a three-fifths supermajority would be needed to exceed budget caps. And the President would be given authority for line-item reduction, to cut back spending to levels enacted in the budget.

This is good because it can be done quickly and with Congressional majority. Bush also supports a "PAYGO" type rule for all spending. It's not a cure-all but it is a key discipline WHICH FAVORS MOVING US TOWARDS LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

[churchillbuff]

Great---- but if we had a conservative president, HE would be the author of this article. (It's the kind of thing Reagan would have written --- but, alas, our current president is no Reagan, at least not so far).

[pogo101]

I like #2. And I think it actually is politically doable.

#1 used to be the status quo, prior, I believe, to WW2. Just a "temporary measure," 'twas ... I support it, of course, but I don't think it could pass. No reason not to try, of course.

#3, with all due respect, is lunacy, if you're being serious and not simply blowing off a little hyperbolic steam.