If you really want to zero in on a number of con artists in Congress, the following article is a wonderful source to identify these charlatans. Senate legislation aims to stop overspending So, Sen. Gregg, and Bill Frist would have the American People believe if âline item vetoâ power were available to the President, it would âslow the growth of federal spending and cut entitlements.â The truth is, if line item veto were available to the executive branch of government, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. But Iâm getting a little ahead of myself, so, let us start from the beginning because understanding our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, expose those who are attempting to subjugate the legislative intent of our Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and returning a bill so amended to the House in which it originated.. Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power as is now proposed under line item veto legislation. Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president: The Convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail the innovative line-item veto proposal most assuredly would resurrect. If the proponents of the line-item veto, such as Sen. Gregg, and Bill Frist want to control reckless spending and borrowing, and encourage Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, they ought to be promoting our Founding Fatherâs plan, and in particular, the founderâs method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to meet its expenses during the course of a fiscal year! Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to meet its expenses, Congress was then intended to lay an apportioned tax among the states for the total sum of the deficit created. The deficiency created by Congressâ borrowing is to be raised by apportioning the sum of the deficit among the states in such a manner that each state receives a bill to pay into the federal treasury a share of the total deficit based upon its number of votes in Congress___ representation with proportion obligation. The Founders intended that those states paying the highest share into the common treasury, would likewise have a proportional vote in determining how their money would be spent! An idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread! Few people realize the Founding Fathers provided a FAIR SHARE FORMULA in our Constitution to extinguish deficits created by Congress___ a constitutionally mandated fair share formula which our big spenders in Congress and the friends of a big socialist government will do almost anything to avoid! Under the Founderâs plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a âUnited Nationsâ [a money laundering operation] are to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the apportioned tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States. Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members! For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward Bottom line We donât need a line item veto power being exercise by the Executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the national Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want. What we need is for Sen. Frist and Sen. Gregg to abide by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, especially with regard to extinguishing annual deficits created by Congressâ reckless borrowing which has to date enslaved the future of our nationâs children to the tune of $50 Trillion. What we need is for Sen. Frist and Sen. Gregg to enforce the apportioned tax among the states to extinguish annual deficits ___ a constitutional rule agreed upon which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their state Governor and Legislation who would be left with the responsibility of meeting their stateâs obligation in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress. Regards, JWK "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
The only reason a line item veto became an issue is that the Watergate Congress created a constitutional crisis with Nixon for failing to spend appropriated funds. Until that time presidents had simply refused to spend funds on projects they opposed. There was a rough balance of power. The president couldn't spend funds that had not been appropriated, but the congress could not force him to spend funds that had been appropriated. Under the current system, the president is faced with having to veto a massive spending bill and shut down the government to get rid of a few pork projects in West Virginia. Hence the appeal of the line item veto, despite its shaky constitutional status.
Given that the current administration is an insult to drunken sailors, a LIV wouldn't do much now. But the next president might make use of it.
If the power existed, I image it would be used by the president, but how? It is beyond me why anyone who is concerned about Congressâ reckless spending and borrowing would support the President having âline-item-veto powerâ How does it force fiscal accountability upon Congress? How would it prevent the President to allow pork to stay which he agrees with, or has been bribed to overlook? How would it prevent the president from striking out pork simply because it is the pork of his political enemies? Almost all states practice line-item veto now and are, as the federal government is, swimming in horrific un-funded debt liabilities. âThe National Association of State Budget Officers considers state debt in excess of $1,200 per capita to be unmanageable. Illinois is now at almost twice the "unmanageable" level, with over $2,000 in state debt per capita -- not including the $40 billion in unfunded pension obligations.â Truth is, un-funded state employee pension funds are a ticking time bomb for the various states, even with line-item-veto powers being exercised in almost all the states! In any event, I read the following which you may be interested in: Frist, Alexander Back Stop Over-Spending Act U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says: What a con artist! âThe new tools in S.O.S. are the most effective measures available for strengthening fiscal discipline and fixing our broken budget processâ? It is interesting to note there is nothing, NOTHING, in the proposed line-item-veto legislation Frist is talking about which would get rid of any pork. But there is language in the proposed âStop Over Spending" [S.O.S.] Legislation, to change the annual budget to a two year cycle budget so our big sending porkers in Congress will only have to listen to music about budget deficits every two years instead of every year. The truth is âthe most effective measureâ to cure Congressâ reckless spending and borrowing is our constitutionally provided apportioned tax among the states, intended by the founding fathers to be used to extinguish federal deficits, and if invoked, would make every member of Congress, including our Republican big spenders and borrowers, immediately accountable to their state Governor and Legislature who would be left with the responsibility of raising their stateâs apportioned share in extinguishing an annual deficit created by Congress! Accountability! The key is to make members of Congress accountable for their reckless spending and borrowing and the founding fathers idea does that! Perhaps that is why our con artist Republican leadership will do anything to avoid laying the apportioned tax to extinguish annual deficits created by Congress. Heck, why should Congress make themselves accountable when they may ignore deficit spending and saddle our younger generation with the tab? Senator Frist just loves to make things up, just like the Democrat leadership loves to make things up.. Regards, JWK
Can we all just agree that both parties are equally worthless? They will do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power and protect the two party monopoly. They may act like there is differences between the two of them, but there really isn't. They are all bureaucrats that wish to grow the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the American people are so beaten down and submissive that they will take anything from these assholes. They could pass a law that people would have to eat shit every day. People would complain and groan, but when it came time they would be standing in line with spoons in hand.
AAA, thanks for the historical context. Very interesting stuff. I'm all for line item veto, or whatever it takes to restore fiscal oversight of Congress. Martin
You are right on target! âThey will do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power and protect the two party monopoly.â Why is it so difficult for the American Voter to not realize why there is such fighting between Republican and Democrat leaders during federal election time? Is it not obvious to all that one thing remains constant after each federal election? Those who win elections get to be in charge of who will be hired and fired from the countless political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington___ many of these jobs not being within the delegated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution and being nothing more than a job to redistribute wealth taxed away from hard working Americans! To get a perspective on the countless number of political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington, take a look at a 1956 telephone directory under federal government and you will find two pages of federal government offices. Look today and that two pages has exploded into a telephone directory that challenges the telephone directory size of many of Americaâs cities. But what is most astonishing when one realizes how large the federal government has grown, and how it now manages to meddle into almost every aspect of the peopleâs private lives, is to read the words of James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45 and then compare his words to the multiple listings for federal government agencies. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." Having identified the intended functions of the federal government, intended to operate on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce, here is a current A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, click on any particular listing to find the countless plum jobs created in that department, many of which have six figure salaries! And what does the phrase, âpolitical plum jobâ mean on Capitol Hill? Do you have any idea how many political plum jobs have been created since 1954, and the amount of tax revenue which goes just to pay the salaries, extravagant health care benefits and outlandishly generous pension programs of those appointed to political plum jobs? Of course, the above questions do not even take into account that many of the plum jobs created are for functions not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, such as the current Department of Education, education being a state constitutionally authorized function! And, just what are some of the plum jobs at the federal Department of Education? For a partial list see: OfficialsâU.S. Department of Education And what do these "OFFICIALS" do at the Department of Education? Surprise, they pilfer money from the Departmentâs budget into their own pockets See: The Department of Embezzlement Fact is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nationâs entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion. Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute to a gangster government which ignores our most basic lawâ¦our constitutions, state and federal. I guess, if the founders were around today one thing they would certainly say is: âHe has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substanceâ ___Declaration of Independence Regards, JWK
As pointed out above: It is beyond me why anyone who is concerned about Congressâ reckless spending and borrowing would support the President having âline-item-veto powerâ How does it force fiscal accountability upon Congress? How would it prevent the President to allow pork to stay which he agrees with, or has been bribed to overlook? How would it prevent the president from striking out pork simply because it is the pork of his political enemies? So, would you support requiring Congress to abide by the Constitutionâs apportioned tax among the states which our Founding Fathers intended to be used to extinguish deficits? Unlike the meaningless line-item-veto, the apportioned tax being required to be laid among the states if Congress borrows to meet its expenses during the course of a fiscal year, would create a moment of accountability in which each states' Congressional Delegation would return to their state with a bill to be handed to their state Governor and Legislature, who would be left with the responsibility of transferring that money from the state treasury into the federal treasury, or raising their stateâs obligation in new taxes to extinguishing the deficit created by Congress and then sending that money to the Treasury of the United States! You want oversight? Then have faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers' plan . . . our Constitution! The historical truth of the intentions of the founding fathers may be found by reading the state ratification documents of our Constitution as to what the founders intended with regard to the various member states contributing into the common treasury in a general direct tax to extinguishing deficits created by Congress. EXAMPLE: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition- But were the above stated intentions generally understood and agreed to by the founders and then practiced by actual legislation for a general tax which would confirm such intentions? Well, let us read from the legislative Acts in which the general tax is involved: APPORTIONMENT OF A DIRECT TAX TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $ 2 MILLION TREASURY DEPARTMENT MAY 25TH 1798 An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states[1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each stateâs share of the $2million being raised.] An Act to repeal the internal taxes April 3rd, 1802 An Act for the assessment and collection of direct taxes, July 22, 1813 Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each stateâs share of the tax Section 7 of direct tax of 1813allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions. And, for a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, CLICK HERE I wonder what Governor Bush would say to Floridaâs Congressional Delegation if they should return to his office with a bill to help extinguish the 2005 deficit created by Congress and approved by President Bush. For a summary of the Founder's intended plan CLICK HERE Regards, JWK "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
I just came across the following analysis of the proposed Line-Item-Veto power being granted to the president. PROPOSED LINE-ITEM VETO LEGISLATION WOULD INVITE ABUSE BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH In any event, I believe if Congress were compelled to lay the apportioned tax among the states to extinguish annual deficits Congress would once again be made the servant of the people rather than their masters. Regards, JWK Representation with proportional obligationâ¦a most formidable idea which encourages fiscal discipline!
<b>Blago is turning Illinois into 'California with snow'? Now who could have seen that coming....</b> http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=905215&highlight=california#post905215