'Pig Book' names congressional porkers

[Doomsday101]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A watchdog group critical of pork barrel spending released its latest findings Wednesday targeting the top Congressional "porkers."

Some of the pork projects, according to the group, include a Lobster Institute; the Rocky Flats, Colorado, Cold War Museum; and the First Tee, a program to build young people's character through golf.

Members of Congress requested funds for all these pet projects and thousands of others last year, according to the latest copy of the annual "Pig Book" released by Citizens Against Government Waste.

"Congress stuffed 11,610 projects" worth $17.2 billion into a dozen spending bills, the group said in the report released Wednesday.

The "Pig Book" names dozens of what the citizens group considers the most egregious porkers, the lawmakers who funnel money to projects on their home turf. Interactive: Pork barrel spending »

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, requested the most money, $892.2 million, according to the group.

In a statement to CNN, Cochran said he doesn't "accept the premise" of the group's claim that "any and all federal spending not specifically requested by the Executive Branch is wasteful and irresponsible."

"The Congress is vested with the power to appropriate funds to be spent by the federal government by the U. S. Constitution. We will continue to carry out that responsibility with care and a commitment to serve the public interest," he said.

"There were several candidates for the Narcissist Award," Tom Schatz, the president of the group said. Read the group's 2008 report

"But this one went to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel for the Charles Rangel Public Service Center at the City College of New York -- $1,950,000 [for a project] that he named after himself."

Rangel, a Democrat from New York, said last summer he was "honored that City College chose to have my name attached to what is an important project, not just for the residents of my congressional district, but for New York City and this nation."

Some lawmakers defended their earmarks, such as Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, who channeled $742,764 to olive fruit fly research.

"The olive fruit fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries," he said.

Schatz responded that his organization is criticizing the way lawmakers direct money to specific projects, not the projects themselves.

"There are existing programs for virtually everything in the 'Pig Book.' If members [of Congress] believe they should be given additional funding, give them to the agencies rather than to specific projects," he said.

The problem with earmarks, he said, is that "we don't know if [the projects] are valuable or not."

Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, the third ranking Democrat in the House, defended his earmark for a program that funds a youth golf program for children on U.S. military bases.

"It's a character building program, that seems to be working well for low income kids and that's why we do it throughout the United States of America. I just feel that children living on military installations ought to have this program as well," Clyburn told CNN.

Clyburn also defended the practice of earmarking federal funds.

"I can name earmark after earmark, there's absolutely nothing wrong with congresspeople responding to their constituents and funding programs that they feel are necessary to improve the quality of life of the people who live in their districts."

Clyburn also raised questions about the group releasing the "Pig Book" saying, "they're not telling the truth about this earmark no more than them telling the truth about where they get their money from. The committee against government waste isn't against government waste."

He cited press reports from the St. Petersburg Times that the Committee Against Government Waste received money from the tobacco industry and other private groups to lobby Congress.

Both parties came in for criticism, with the Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, topping the Republicans in spending.

The Democrats were behind 5,199 projects worth $5.5 billion, while the Republicans earmarked 3,408 projects worth $4.4 billion, the citizen's group said.

And in a sign bipartisanship is not dead, the two parties jointly backed 2,518 projects worth $3.8 billion. Interactive: Map of pork per capita by state »

The three senators running for president were not among the top targets of criticism, and one got an entirely clean bill from the watchdog group.

"Sen. [Barack] Obama had 53 earmarks worth $97 million dollars, and Sen. [Hillary] Clinton had 281 earmarks worth $296 million. Sen. Obama recently said he would not request any project for this upcoming fiscal year," said Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

"And of course Sen. [John] McCain has never requested them and he won't be doing so in 2009. So now the question is if Sen. Clinton will join the other major candidates in saying that she will not request any earmarks for 2009."

To qualify for the Pig Book, a project must meet at least one of these standards: it was requested by only one chamber of Congress; was not specifically authorized; was not competitively awarded; was not requested by the president; greatly exceeded the president's budget request or the previous year's funding; was not the subject of congressional hearings; or served only a local or special interests.

[AbeBeta]

That Thompson piece is BS -- he's congressman to a rural agricultural area. That's a totally justifiable piece of bacon

[Doomsday101]

That Thompson piece is BS -- he's congressman to a rural agricultural area. That's a totally justifiable piece of bacon

The thing that bothers me is how they sneak these projects into Bills that have nothing to do with the Bill itself. Both sides do it and it needs to stop.

[AtlCB]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A watchdog group critical of pork barrel spending released its latest findings Wednesday targeting the top Congressional "porkers."

Some of the pork projects, according to the group, include a Lobster Institute; the Rocky Flats, Colorado, Cold War Museum; and the First Tee, a program to build young people's character through golf.

Members of Congress requested funds for all these pet projects and thousands of others last year, according to the latest copy of the annual "Pig Book" released by Citizens Against Government Waste.

"Congress stuffed 11,610 projects" worth $17.2 billion into a dozen spending bills, the group said in the report released Wednesday.
:bang3:

The "Pig Book" names dozens of what the citizens group considers the most egregious porkers, the lawmakers who funnel money to projects on their home turf. Interactive: Pork barrel spending »

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, requested the most money, $892.2 million, according to the group.
:eekmouse:

He must have doubled the economy of Mississippi with all of this garbage!

In a statement to CNN, Cochran said he doesn't "accept the premise" of the group's claim that "any and all federal spending not specifically requested by the Executive Branch is wasteful and irresponsible."

"The Congress is vested with the power to appropriate funds to be spent by the federal government by the U. S. Constitution. We will continue to carry out that responsibility with care and a commitment to serve the public interest," he said.
Of course he doesn't. :rolleyes:

"There were several candidates for the Narcissist Award," Tom Schatz, the president of the group said. Read the group's 2008 report

"But this one went to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel for the Charles Rangel Public Service Center at the City College of New York -- $1,950,000 [for a project] that he named after himself."

Rangel, a Democrat from New York, said last summer he was "honored that City College chose to have my name attached to what is an important project, not just for the residents of my congressional district, but for New York City and this nation."
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
:muttley:

Some lawmakers defended their earmarks, such as Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, who channeled $742,764 to olive fruit fly research.

"The olive fruit fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries," he said.
:rolleyes:

Schatz responded that his organization is criticizing the way lawmakers direct money to specific projects, not the projects themselves.

"There are existing programs for virtually everything in the 'Pig Book.' If members [of Congress] believe they should be given additional funding, give them to the agencies rather than to specific projects," he said.

The problem with earmarks, he said, is that "we don't know if [the projects] are valuable or not."

Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, the third ranking Democrat in the House, defended his earmark for a program that funds a youth golf program for children on U.S. military bases.

"It's a character building program, that seems to be working well for low income kids and that's why we do it throughout the United States of America. I just feel that children living on military installations ought to have this program as well," Clyburn told CNN.Hey Jim. If you would pay the enlisted members a decent wage, you wouldn't have low income kids on the military base! :mad:

Clyburn also defended the practice of earmarking federal funds.

"I can name earmark after earmark, there's absolutely nothing wrong with congresspeople responding to their constituents and funding programs that they feel are necessary to improve the quality of life of the people who live in their districts."Yes, there is something wrong with it. The state and local governments and the people in your district have the responsibility of funding these projects specific to your district!

Clyburn also raised questions about the group releasing the "Pig Book" saying, "they're not telling the truth about this earmark no more than them telling the truth about where they get their money from. The committee against government waste isn't against government waste."

He cited press reports from the St. Petersburg Times that the Committee Against Government Waste received money from the tobacco industry and other private groups to lobby Congress.Attacking the group who developed this study is much easier than taking responsibility for wasting the taxpayers' money.

Both parties came in for criticism, with the Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, topping the Republicans in spending.

The Democrats were behind 5,199 projects worth $5.5 billion, while the Republicans earmarked 3,408 projects worth $4.4 billion, the citizen's group said.

And in a sign bipartisanship is not dead, the two parties jointly backed 2,518 projects worth $3.8 billion. Interactive: Map of pork per capita by state »
I guess both parties can at least agree on something. :bang2:

The three senators running for president were not among the top targets of criticism, and one got an entirely clean bill from the watchdog group.

"Sen. [Barack] Obama had 53 earmarks worth $97 million dollars, and Sen. [Hillary] Clinton had 281 earmarks worth $296 million. Sen. Obama recently said he would not request any project for this upcoming fiscal year," said Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste.Is this the kind of change that Obama is talking about?

"And of course Sen. [John] McCain has never requested them and he won't be doing so in 2009. So now the question is if Sen. Clinton will join the other major candidates in saying that she will not request any earmarks for 2009."At least someone had shown some restraint!

To qualify for the Pig Book, a project must meet at least one of these standards: it was requested by only one chamber of Congress; was not specifically authorized; was not competitively awarded; was not requested by the president; greatly exceeded the president's budget request or the previous year's funding; was not the subject of congressional hearings; or served only a local or special interests.Sounds like a fair study.

[PosterChild]

The thing that bothers me is how they sneak these projects into Bills that have nothing to do with the Bill itself. Both sides do it and it needs to stop.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/12/lineitem.veto/line.item.veto.gif

[AtlCB]

That Thompson piece is BS -- he's congressman to a rural agricultural area. That's a totally justifiable piece of bacon

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[AtlCB]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/12/lineitem.veto/line.item.veto.gif
I couldn't agree more.

[trickblue]

The thing that bothers me is how they sneak these projects into Bills that have nothing to do with the Bill itself. Both sides do it and it needs to stop.

line.item.veto

[PosterChild]

line.item.veto

First

[AtlCB]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/12/lineitem.veto/line.item.veto.gif

I remember the battle for this in the 90's. The Contract with America republicans and Bill Clinton wanted this too happen, but too many long-term Republicans and Democrats successfully defeated it. :banghead:

[Doomsday101]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/12/lineitem.veto/line.item.veto.gif

I wish they would create an amendment to give the President the power of the Line Item Veto. Allow the President the power to strike these items and send the bill back to congress for a vote.

Right now what we have is any person who votes aginst say a education bill because of some pork project gets labled as one who was aginst education when what he was aginst was some pork project that had nothing to do with education.

Or this recent example:

A supplemental appropriations bill intended to provide funding for the war effort in Iraq is being used to promote amnesty for illegal aliens and more low-wage guest workers for powerful business interests. The addition of two amendments to the Iraq War Supplemental Appropriations bill will mean that in order to provide emergency funding for our troops in Iraq, senators will be forced to approve an illegal alien amnesty and expand guest worker programs that harm American workers.


The Senate Appropriations Committee today included an amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would grant a five-year amnesty to 1.35 million illegal aliens working in agriculture, plus their spouses and children, and allow agribusiness to freeze wages for new guest workers at 2007 levels for the next three years. The five-year amnesty would likely be a prelude to permanent legalization for these illegal aliens.


A second amendment adopted by the committee, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), would vastly increase the number of unskilled H-2B guest workers permitted to work in this country. The Mikulski amendment would reinstate the exemption for returning H-2B workers from numerical caps on the program.


What we witnessed today in the Senate Appropriations Committee is a cynical attempt to use Americans support for our men and women in Iraq to advance blatant special interest legislation that benefits powerful business lobbies, charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Tying amnesty for illegal aliens and still more cheap labor for powerful business interests to support for our troops in Iraq is an unconscionable abuse of the appropriations process.


Now tell me what these items have to do with the funding of our troops?

[PosterChild]

I wish they would create an amendment to give the President the power of the Line Item Veto. Allow the President the power to strike these items and send the bill back to congress for a vote.

Right now what we have is any person who votes aginst say a education bill because of some pork project gets labled as one who was aginst education when what he was aginst was some pork project that had nothing to do with education.

Or this recent example:

A supplemental appropriations bill intended to provide funding for the war effort in Iraq is being used to promote amnesty for illegal aliens and more low-wage guest workers for powerful business interests. The addition of two amendments to the Iraq War Supplemental Appropriations bill will mean that in order to provide emergency funding for our troops in Iraq, senators will be forced to approve an illegal alien amnesty and expand guest worker programs that harm American workers.


The Senate Appropriations Committee today included an amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would grant a five-year amnesty to 1.35 million illegal aliens working in agriculture, plus their spouses and children, and allow agribusiness to freeze wages for new guest workers at 2007 levels for the next three years. The five-year amnesty would likely be a prelude to permanent legalization for these illegal aliens.


A second amendment adopted by the committee, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), would vastly increase the number of unskilled H-2B guest workers permitted to work in this country. The Mikulski amendment would reinstate the exemption for returning H-2B workers from numerical caps on the program.


What we witnessed today in the Senate Appropriations Committee is a cynical attempt to use Americans support for our men and women in Iraq to advance blatant special interest legislation that benefits powerful business lobbies, charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Tying amnesty for illegal aliens and still more cheap labor for powerful business interests to support for our troops in Iraq is an unconscionable abuse of the appropriations process.


Now tell me what these items have to do with the funding of our troops?

It is maddening. Nothing typifies what is wrong with our current govt more than this deplorable vehicle for waste and greed. Problem is any hope of the LIV coming forth rests with any increasingly D congress...and perhaps a D Exceutive.:(

[AtlCB]

It is maddening. Nothing typifies what is wrong with our current govt more than this deplorable vehicle for waste and greed. Problem is any hope of the LIV coming forth rests with any increasingly D congress...and perhaps a D Exceutive.:(
Clinton was the only Dem I remember supporting the Line Item Veto. Wasn't it the Republicans who first tried to push this through Congress?

To be fair, I think the majority of both parties are against it. I think it will take a president willing to fight for the line item veto, a lot of pressure from voters, and a lot of first-term senators to get this passed.

[Doomsday101]

Clinton was the only Dem I remember supporting the Line Item Veto. Wasn't it the Republicans who first tried to push this through Congress?

I know that both parties tend to be for the line item veto when their president is in office. No doubt I am a Republican but I want to see this happen regardless of what party is in office. I think they can do this in a way that gives the President more leeway than to either veto a bill or not. Allow him to strike items from a bill and send it back for approval. Something needs to be done to stop these excessive spending sprees

[PosterChild]

Clinton was the only Dem I remember supporting the Line Item Veto. Wasn't it the Republicans who first tried to push this through Congress?

To be fair, I think the majority of both parties are against it. I think it will take a president willing to fight for the line item veto, a lot of pressure from voters, and a lot of first-term senators to get this passed.

Do you (anyone) know McCain's position on it?

[Doomsday101]

Do you (anyone) know McCain's position on it?


John McCain has led the fight to provide the president with the line item veto. He was a cosponsor of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, and has continued to support passage of legislation allowing the president to veto individual spending programs. (S.4. introduced 1/4/1995, Became Public Law No: 104-130; Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 2006, S. 2443, Introduced 3/16/06)

[PosterChild]

John McCain has led the fight to provide the president with the line item veto. He was a cosponsor of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, and has continued to support passage of legislation allowing the president to veto individual spending programs. (S.4. introduced 1/4/1995, Became Public Law No: 104-130; Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 2006, S. 2443, Introduced 3/16/06)

Thanks. There's maybe a third reason I could in theory stomach a McCain Presidency.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Love the number of people who are so eager to give the president MORE power and ignore things that are put in place for a very good reason.

[Doomsday101]

Love the number of people who are so eager to give the president MORE power and ignore things that are put in place for a very good reason.

Sorry I feel strongly about this and will continue to support any move to bring about the Line Item Veto. I do think it is the right thing to do. As for things put into place things change and have changed in the course of our history.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sorry I feel strongly about this and will continue to support any move to bring about the Line Item Veto. I do think it is the right thing to do. As for things put into place things change and have changed in the course of our history.

I think I have had enough of Admins having unchecked power and swaying the balance of power issues.

We can agree to disagree. But there are better ways to deal with it instead of giving the President, ANY President, more power.

I would think if anything we would have learned that by now.

[Doomsday101]

I think I have had enough of Admins having unchecked power and swaying the balance of power issues.

We can agree to disagree. But there are better ways to deal with it instead of giving the President, ANY President, more power.

I would think if anything we would have learned that by now.

I think there is a way to give the President the ability to strike portions of a bill without having the bill being veto and essentially having good Bills killed because of 1 or 2 unrelated items that some congress person sticks in the bill. That is called throwing the baby out with the bath water

You could have the President with the power to strike items then have it sent back to congress for their vote on the revised bill this would keep the checks and balance between the executive and legislative branches.
As the Line Item is now it would have congress send a bill to the president he would strike the items he does not want then he would sign it into law without any further approval. That is not what I'm asking for

[PosterChild]

Love the number of people who are so eager to give the president MORE power and ignore things that are put in place for a very good reason.

A compromise could be reached whereby one or both branches could override the LIV with a 2/3 vote or name-your-margin.

That may appear nonsensical but keep in mind that typically one or three legislators sneak this pork into bills and often their colleagues really don't pay attention. In fact, they count on it.

If forced to debate the special provisions you're certainly less likely to see wasteful congressional spending, favor trading or abuse of executive power.

[PosterChild]

I think there is a way to give the President the ability to strike portions of a bill without having the bill being veto and essentially having good Bills killed because of 1 or 2 unrelated items that some congress person sticks in the bill. That is called throwing the baby out with the bath water

You could have the President with the power to strike items then have it sent back to congress for their vote on the revised bill this would keep the checks and balance between the executive and legislative branches.
As the Line Item is now it would have congress send a bill to the president he would strike the items he does not want then he would sign it into law without any further approval. That is not what I'm asking for

I see we think the same here...I've always said you were a visionary, and ahead of your time.

[burmafrd]

Actually it was the court that declared the Line Item Veto unconstituitional. And even the ACLU lawyers agreed that that was BS. Whether a line item or a regular veto= they are the same for all practical purposes.

[DragonCowboy]

The problem with a line-item veto is that it gives the president power to make laws (in essence), which should solely be Congress' power.

There should be some way to stop what's going on in Congress, but I'm not sure line-item vetoes is the way to go.

[silverbear]

That group should take out annual full page ads in the leading newspapers across the country, listing the worst porkers, and how much they've asked for... this would be a useful public service...

[silverbear]

Love the number of people who are so eager to give the president MORE power and ignore things that are put in place for a very good reason.


You think the people arguing this right now would be waging this argument if it was a Democrat sitting in the White House these past 8 years?? I certainly don't remember any of them advocating the line item veto when Bill Clinton was president...

Clearly, the arguments right now are a result of right wing frustration over not controlling Congress any more, the inability of the Republican Party to force legislation it desires on the nation...

For proof, consider that Dubya did not once use his veto pen while the GOP controlled both houses of Congress; Congress was basically his lap dog... but now, he's whipping out the veto pen on a near-daily basis, because he doesn't have his lap dog any more... as far as I'm concerned, government is functioning EXACTLY as our founding fathers intended it to... I don't believe that Thomas Jefferson would be a champion of the line item veto...

[silverbear]

I couldn't agree more.

Then you need to go back to Civics class, and study up on the separation of powers our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution... giving a President the line item veto usurps Congress' authority...

And as I've said a number of times in here, you (righties in general) wouldn't be a fan of the line item veto if a DEMOCRAT was sitting in the White House...

[silverbear]

I remember the battle for this in the 90's. The Contract with America republicans and Bill Clinton wanted this too happen, but too many long-term Republicans and Democrats successfully defeated it. :banghead:

I opposed it back then, too... the line item veto makes our President too close to a supreme ruler... I don't want that for a Democratic president OR a Republican one...

You're just bitter because the GOP doesn't control Congress any more, and Dubya can't just ramrod legislation of his choosing through there... and you're scared to death about what will happen if the Americans do put a Democrat in the White House, combined with a Democrat-controlled Congress...

I actually share some of that latter concern, I've always been of the opinion that the country is best served when one party has the White House and the other controls Congress... this serves to check the worst impulses of both... but your objection is not really on principle, as I said I'm confident none of you will be advocating a line item veto if Barack Obama becomes President...

[silverbear]

I wish they would create an amendment to give the President the power of the Line Item Veto. Allow the President the power to strike these items and send the bill back to congress for a vote.

And what happens if the President turns out to be a corrupt, evil man??

Instead, what we need is a Constitutional Amendment outlawing "pork" add-ons to ANY bill... specify that all provisions of a bill must be related directly to that bill, and any "pork" requests must stand or fall on their own, as separate bills for Congress' consideration...

[silverbear]

Clinton was the only Dem I remember supporting the Line Item Veto. Wasn't it the Republicans who first tried to push this through Congress?

To be fair, I think the majority of both parties are against it. I think it will take a president willing to fight for the line item veto, a lot of pressure from voters, and a lot of first-term senators to get this passed.

I think it would be a terrible thing if it did pass, that's a dictatorship, not a democracy...

Pork can be addressed in other ways, the line-item veto is contrary to the intentions of the men who wrote our Constitution... they were dead-set against any President of the United States having anything close to the power of a "supreme ruler" (i.e., the King of England)...

Giving any President the line-item veto is affording him too much power, period... and we've had too many bad men sitting in that office for me to willingly cede supreme power to any of 'em...

[silverbear]

I know that both parties tend to be for the line item veto when their president is in office. No doubt I am a Republican but I want to see this happen regardless of what party is in office. I think they can do this in a way that gives the President more leeway than to either veto a bill or not. Allow him to strike items from a bill and send it back for approval. Something needs to be done to stop these excessive spending sprees


Your compromise approach is better than some advocated in here, but again, I see ways to solve the pork problem without giving any President line item veto power... simply outlaw the tacking on of pork to any bill, make those legislators introduce their pork requests as a separate bill, and let Congress vote up or down on it... then let the President veto that pork bill, if he thinks it's the right thing to do...

I have a notion that would immediately cut down on the number of requests for pork, as Congressmen couldn't "hide" their pork inside a larger bill...

[silverbear]

Love the number of people who are so eager to give the president MORE power and ignore things that are put in place for a very good reason.


Exactly... these are naifs, who apparently think every President we've ever had was a good, noble man... put that power in the hands of an evil, venal man, and much bad could result...

The Constitution as it was originally framed was a wise document, and we should stick to it... what's funny is most of these guys advocating the line item veto in here are guys who call themselves "strict constructionists" (IOW, folks who want to interpret the Constitution strictly, and want judges that do the same), but they seem to have a problem with the checks and balances written into that document...

[silverbear]

A compromise could be reached whereby one or both branches could override the LIV with a 2/3 vote or name-your-margin.

That may appear nonsensical but keep in mind that typically one or three legislators sneak this pork into bills and often their colleagues really don't pay attention. In fact, they count on it.

This is true, but I think the way to address that is to outlaw the tacking on of pork to ANY bill... make the legislators introduce their pork as separate legislation, let their requests be debated on the floor of Congress, then let an up or down vote be held...

If forced to debate the special provisions you're certainly less likely to see wasteful congressional spending, favor trading or abuse of executive power.

It would actually encourage abuse of executive power... it would make pork less likely, but I think my proposal does the same, without giving the executive branch more power than the framers of our Constitution intended it to have...

[silverbear]

Actually it was the court that declared the Line Item Veto unconstituitional. And even the ACLU lawyers agreed that that was BS. Whether a line item or a regular veto= they are the same for all practical purposes.

No, they're not... a line item veto lets a President thwart the will of the Legislative branch, by picking and choosing which aspects of a bill he finds acceptable...

The President is not a dictator, he doesn't get to unilaterally make the rules... America is not a banana republic... not yet, anyway...

[silverbear]

The problem with a line-item veto is that it gives the president power to make laws (in essence), which should solely be Congress' power.

There should be some way to stop what's going on in Congress, but I'm not sure line-item vetoes is the way to go.

Exactly right... pork is a problem that needs to be addressed, but the line item veto is not the way to address it...

[burmafrd]

BS. Its not making laws. What kind of interpretation is that?
A separate item is veto'd. It cannot therefore BECOME law.

[silverbear]

BS. Its not making laws.

Of course it is, it's giving the President the power to unilaterally decide which laws passed by Congress become law, and which do not... he gets to pick and choose which aspects of a given bill suit him...

A separate item is veto'd. It cannot therefore BECOME law.

And the Constitution is squarely against giving any President such power... indeed, if Congress ever did pass a line-item veto, it's quite likely that any "strict constructionalist" judge would strike it down as unconstitutional...

And wouldn't THAT be the essence of irony, judges appointed by Republicans for their conservative views wind up denying the neocons that additional power they so desperately lust after??

[AtlCB]

Then you need to go back to Civics class, and study up on the separation of powers our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution... giving a President the line item veto usurps Congress' authority...

And as I've said a number of times in here, you (righties in general) wouldn't be a fan of the line item veto if a DEMOCRAT was sitting in the White House...

For someone who really got upset with me using an insult, you sure don't mind doling them out against me.

Also, it was the righties who first pushed for the line item veto when Clinton (a DEMOCRAT) was president!

[AtlCB]

I think it would be a terrible thing if it did pass, that's a dictatorship, not a democracy...

Pork can be addressed in other ways, the line-item veto is contrary to the intentions of the men who wrote our Constitution... they were dead-set against any President of the United States having anything close to the power of a "supreme ruler" (i.e., the King of England)...

Giving any President the line-item veto is affording him too much power, period... and we've had too many bad men sitting in that office for me to willingly cede supreme power to any of 'em...Allowing the president to remove a little pork from a bill hardly qualifies as a dictatorship.

[Heisenberg]

I'm with Bear on this one. I don't think a Line Item Veto is a good idea. Anything that takes away the need for compromise is bad.

There's a reason that the best government is a gridlocked government. You make the two parties work together to get what they want passed. That's a good thing.

[Heisenberg]

Allowing the president to remove a little pork from a bill hardly qualifies as a dictatorship.

The president's idea of pork may be different from anyone elses. That's the issue.

[silverbear]

For someone who really got upset with me using an insult, you sure don't mind doling them out against me.

What's insulting about pointing out that the line item veto runs contrary to one of the basic principles of the Constitution?? All I suggested was that you revisit the concept of checks and balances, and reflect on how that concept would be sabotaged by the line item veto...

No, I've been making a concerted effort to rein in the Dubya bashing, and focus on the upcoming election, and I've been making an effort to emphasize facts rather than my anger in my arguments... if you perceived an insult in that post, your perceptions have misled you...

[silverbear]

Allowing the president to remove a little pork from a bill hardly qualifies as a dictatorship.

A bit of hyperbole on my part, to be sure, but it IS a step in that direction... it has the effect of taking power away from the Legislative branch, and giving more power to the Executive branch...

The framers of the Constitution were eager to limit how much power a President could have, this is NOT something they would have approved of...