Line-item Veto. What is it? Where did it go?

Remember when President Bush spoke frequently regarding the line-item veto? What is a line-item veto? What became of the attempt to get that through Congress?

"In government, the line-item veto is the power of an executive to nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package." -- Wikipedia

Did you know that power of the line-item veto has not actually been given to anyone except for a brief time with Reagan and then Clinton since the American Civil War in 1861. It was ruled unconstitutional in 1998. The line-item veto is a tool that is currently available for use by most U.S. governors.

"Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three 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." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995." -- Wikipedia

Why has there not been an amendment to the constitution? Wouldn't the line-item veto be a prudent measure with the deficit that our country is currently producing? Wouldn't the line-item veto be a wise amendment to implement to get our country's economy back in balance?

The programs that get inserted into important bills that cause them to be vetoed ("Pork"), that tend to be placed in those bills because of lobbyists, would not get through with a line-item veto constitutional amendment. Therefore, my guess is that it won't get passed, even though it is an important amendment to get our country back on its feet.

"The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton." -- Wikipedia

Click here to see a history of line-item vetos.

In 1996, President Bush discussed the option of the line-item veto.

"...I'm proud to be here with John McCain ... we agree... that this country needs to have a line-item veto...

...The cornerstone of our policy has been to keep taxes low...the more money a person has in their pocket, the more likely it is this economy is going to grow. We trust people to make the right decisions on how to spend, save, and invest...

...You'll hear people say, let's balance the budget by raising taxes....They'll raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money...

...A line-item veto would be a vital tool that a President could use to target spending that lawmakers tack on to the large spending bills. That's called earmarking...a lot of times, the earmark doesn't fit into the priorities that have been sent through the budgetary process. A lot of times earmarks are inserted into bills at the last minute, which leaves no time, or little time, for debate....Earmark sponsors are often not required to provide their colleagues with a reasoned justification for proposed spending...

...the number of earmarks has increased from about 3,000 to 13,000 over the last decade...I'm proposing a way to help deal with this problem. And that way is to pass a line-item veto...

...the Supreme Court struck it down because they concluded that it unconstitutionally permitted the President to unilaterally change a law passed by the Congress...And so we proposed the following type of legislation: When the President sees an earmark or spending provision that is wasteful or unnecessary, he can send it back to the Congress. And Congress is then required to hold a prompt up or down vote on whether to retain the targeted spending. In other words, the Congress is still in the process...

...I think it makes sense, no matter who the President may be. I think it makes sense for a Republican President to have a line-item veto, and I think it makes sense for a Democrat President to have a line-item veto." -- White House

The line-item veto only made it through the House. It was halted at the Senate by Senator Harry Reid and other Democratic Senators.

"Democrats have lost their enthusiasm for a modest line-item veto. "Make no mistake, this line-item veto authority would grant tremendous -- and dangerous -- new power to the president," said Sen. Robert Byrd, who supported a similar measure 12 years ago." -- The Drudge Report

"Some Members claim the item veto is a power grab by the executive branch. But it’s more accurate to say that it would restore some of the Presidential power that Congress stole in the 1970s. The budget act of 1974, passed over a weakened President Nixon, stripped the executive of the power to impound funds—that is, to refuse to spend. Presidents going back to the republic’s early days had used such authority." -- The American Conservative Union

The line-item veto was rewritten and sent through as the "Second Look at Wasteful Spending" amendment to make it more constitutionally sound and spread out the "power" so that the U.S. Congress would be deeply involved in the process, so the President wouldn't have all of the power to completely veto the earmarks, as they would get re-submitted to Congress.

"What this Second Look at Waste amendment does is allow the President on four different occasions to send back to the Congress a group of what would be earmarks in most instances for the Congress to vote on again. And essentially say to the Congress, those items which were buried in this great big bill, those specific little items, they should be reviewed, and Congress should have to vote them up or down. Congress then, by a majority vote, must vote on whether or not it approves those specific spending items. And that’s called enhanced rescission. It is not a line-item veto. A line-item veto is where the President can go in and line-item out a specific item and then send it back to the Congress, and the Congress by a two-thirds vote must vote to override the President’s proposal to eliminate the spending. In this instance, the Congress retains the right to spend this money if a majority of the Congress decides to spend the money in either House.

So as a practical matter, it’s a much, much weaker, dramatically weaker proposal than what is known as the line-item veto, which passed here in the early 1990’s and was ruled unconstitutional. It has been drafted in a way so it has been tracked very closely the language by Senator Byrd back in 1995 and was then called enhanced rescission. " -- The Hill Blog

The person who is responsible for the amendment is Senator Judd Gregg. The amendment would be made to The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.

Senate Republicans describe the measure as, “The holy grail for porkbusters."

Read on…

Sen. Gregg’s office put out the following information about the amendment.

"A Second Look at Wasteful Spending would help to restore fiscal discipline that the Majority Leader seeks, by giving the President the opportunity to force Congress to take a second look at wasteful spending - including both discretionary spending and new mandatory spending – as well as targeted tax cuts. Under the amendment:

• The President can send up to 4 rescission packages per year.

• Congress would be required to fast track the President’s recommendation within 8 days.

• Unlike the previous 1996 line-item veto proposal, A Second Look at Wasteful Spending requires Congressional affirmation of the President’s rescission package.

• Savings from rescissions passed by Congress must be used for deficit reduction.

• The authority sunsets after 4 years – giving Congress the ability to evaluate merits of rescission authority after President Bush and his successor have had the opportunity to use.

The amendment has nearly 30 Senate co-sponsors and is supported by the White House and a large number of business and fiscal watchdog organizations. (emphasis in original)

A senate source e-mailed to inform that negotiations were then ongoing between the Democratic leadership and Senators McConnell (R-KY) and Gregg over the amendment. Apparently the negotiations were not fruitful for the Democrats as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) appeared on the floor to announce that there would not be a vote on the Gregg Amendment. Sen. McConnell responded by making it clear that the objection to the vote came from the Democrat caucus. Sen. McConnell also noted that the Democrats similarly objected to provisions in last year’s ethics package, ultimately killing the overall measure by voting against cloture. Sen. Reid’s devastating riposte was to explain that the disagreement was not about the substance of the amendment, you see, but was over the time allotted for debate. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) chimed in by complaining that last year’s cloture vote on the ethics bill was taken after only one amendment and the Democrats have allowed consideration of 12 amendments to the current bill.

Earlier in the week, Republicans threw the Senate into chaos when they defeated a motion to table Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) amendment to S. 1. The DeMint amendment simply inserted the same rules on earmark disclosure into the Senate bill that had been approved by the Democratic House. When a vote on the amendment was finally held, it passed 98-0.

The fact is that Democrats object to the Gregg amendment and the DeMint amendment because they aren’t really against earmarks. They only wanted to campaign on the issue, not actually do anything substantive about it. Now that they are in the majority, they want all the perks of office; and that includes easier access to taxpayer dollars for their constituencies and their re-election chances. But feisty Senate Republicans are not letting them have their pork and eat it too. So, Sen. Reid, Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Democrats are obstructing their own bill and explaining. And, as we know in politics, when you're explaining, you're losing." -- Red State

The amendment was blocked by the Senate Democrats.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement on Wednesday after the Senate Democrats blocked U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg’s A Second Look at Wasteful Spending amendment from coming to a vote:

“I’m disappointed that our Democratic colleagues promised a new way of working together, yet blocked a commonsense fiscal measure designed to do just that. Twenty Democrats currently in the Senate supported a similar measure when it was proposed in 1995, yet today they refused to allow even a simple yes-or-no vote.

“Americans demanded reform and we owe it to them. If we are going to continue to pass real reforms, must put politics aside and get to work.” -- Senator Mitch McConnell

As for the future of a line-item veto-type measure, including amendments, there is no future at this time.

As for the vote of President-Elect Barack Obama, his vote was "Nay".

"On the Cloture Motion S.Amdt. 101 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2 - To provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending by establishing enhance rescission authority under fast-track procedures."

"Cloture Motion Rejected (49-48, 3/5 majority required)"

Nay -- Obama's Voting Record

May God Bless America

By now, the whole world knows that Obama is the next President of the United States of American.

Now that the country has made her decision, we must all come together with respect for the person who has won the election. There may be differences of opinion regarding programs and regarding character, but there is one uniting outcome. That uniting outcome is that we will all be governed by the same president. Another uniting outcome is that we must all live by the law of the land.

May Barack Obama create unity, prosperity, and not poverty. Pray that the newly elected officials will make decisions that are best for our country and remember the United States Constitution in the process, that we may not lose what our Founding Fathers worked so hard to create, that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that many take for granted, that we may all be privy to the idea of the American Dream.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson

To McCain and Palin, let's give our best wishes and general sympathetic condolences for a campaign that was strong and fought hard. They did an amazing job and are both amazing people. May them and their families enjoy some time off and may the universe grant them influence where they can be most useful from this time forth.

"America was established not to create wealth but to realize a vision, to realize an ideal--to discover and maintain liberty among men." -- Woodrow Wilson

May God bless America.

Did you know?

Question: What is America 's first line of missile
interceptor defense that protects the entire United States ?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.


Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on
permanent active duty?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard


Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile
Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska


Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on
highly classified military issues, homeland security, and
counter terrorism?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska


Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified
security rating than either candidate of the Democrat Party?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska


According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain
in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used
to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national
security, because she already is.

"Skin In The Game"

Note: This post was an email sent to me from a friend. I did not create nor verify the content of it, however, it is interesting to read so I decided to post it on my blog.

******************************
To: Friends and Supporters

From: Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families

Date: Monday, April 7, 2008


“Skin In The Game”

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have gotten into considerable trouble
lately for embellishing their personal stories. In contrast, Senator John
McCain has demonstrated a remarkable degree of humility in recent speeches.
Rather than refusing to recognize his faults, he has owned up to them,
which is highly unusual for self-aggrandizing politicians in today’s media-
intense culture.

Far from suggesting that he is the “political messiah” we need with the
solutions to every problem, McCain acknowledges that he has been an
“imperfect public servant,” who has made mistakes. A Washington Times
reporter wrote, “Coming at the end of two terms from President Bush, who
almost never admits to an error in judgment or action, Mr. McCain’s public
introspection was startlingly frank.”

Some critics might be tempted to dismiss last week’s series of speeches as
just the political rhetoric of a candidate trying to “reinvent” himself for
the general election. I disagree. After winning the New Hampshire
primary, Senator McCain said:

“I learned long ago that serving only oneself is a petty and unsatisfying
ambition. But serve a cause greater than self-interest and you will know a
happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of fame and fortune.
For me that greater cause has always been my country, which I have served
imperfectly for many years, but have loved without any reservation every
day of my life.

I am grateful beyond expression for the prospect that I
might serve her a little while longer.”

Yesterday’s New York Times also explored another aspect of Senator McCain’s
humility. In a 2,700 word report, the Times delved into the service of
Lance Corporal Jimmy McCain, the senator’s 19 year-old son, who joined the
Marines at the age of 17, and recently returned from Iraq . (The senator
also has 21 year-old son, Jack McCain, who is attending the Naval Academy ,
and an older son, Doug, who was a Navy pilot.)

The love of God and Country is clearly a value cherished in the McCain
family, and the senator has steadfastly refused to exploit his son’s
service in Iraq as a political prop, even when it might be politically
expedient to do so. In my view, that speaks volumes about the senator’s
integrity and character, especially when he talks about the necessity of
victory in Iraq and when he refers to the evil of Islamofascism as “the
transcendent challenge of our time.”

Former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, told the New York Times
that Senator McCain has, “... to use a gambler’s term, skin in the game.
It’s among the most important things that people want to know about John
McCain in trying to decide whether or not to trust him.”

Over the weekend, one of Barack Obama’s supporters, liberal talk show host
Ed Schultz, called Senator McCain a “warmonger.” Liberals never learn.
The Left said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. Whether it was the
Soviets in Reagan’s day or radical Iranian Holocaust deniers today, the
Left always assumes the worst about America and hopes for the best when
dealing with our enemies.

Thankfully, the American people have demonstrated more commonsense when it
comes to choosing a president to answer that 3:00 AM phone call. Americans
tend to trust the man with “skin in the game,” who knows what he believes
and who has confidence in our country.

I believe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will become yet another sad
footnote in American history by joining the long list of defeatist
Democrats rejected at the ballot box – Hubert Humphery, George McGovern,
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.

Bill & Hillary’s Tax Returns

The Clintons sure have done well under the American capitalist system they
love to bash in their populist speeches. Their newly released tax returns
show that the dynamic duo brought in $109 million from 2000 to 2007. Not
too shabby at all! By any reasonable standard, that makes them rich, and
as we know from the campaign speeches of John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi and Ted
Kennedy – the rich in America are the problem.

I’m being sarcastic, of course. But it never ceases to amaze me how much
hypocrisy there is on the political Left. I remember how badly the Left
bashed Ronald Reagan after he made a few bucks when he left the White
House. But compared to the Clinton money machine, Reagan was in the minor
leagues.

Hillary and Bill are promising us that if we send them back to the White
House, they will raise taxes on the “rich.” Unfortunately, they don’t
define that word as only those who made $109 million in seven years. No,
when the taxes go up, a whole lot of Americans will discover that the class
warriors of Washington , D.C. , are very inclusive when it comes to “soaking
the rich.”

Please feel free to pass on this "End of Day" update to interested friends
and family members.

If you would like to receive this update by e-mail, you can sign up online
at http://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_eod_request.php

To be removed from Gary Bauer’s End of Day distribution list, please reply
to this message with "Remove" in the subject line.

If you would like to support our work, please click on the following link:
https://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_contribution.php




Paid for by Campaign for Working Families and not authorized by any
candidate or candidate’s committee.

Campaign for Working Families
2800 Shirlington Road
Suite 930
Arlington , VA 22206
Phone:703-671-8800
Fax: 703-671-8899
Web: www.cwfpac.com

Will Your Next U.S. President Promote The New World Order?

Will your next United States President promote The New World Order?

Perhaps you might like a glimpse back in history (which ultimately takes you into the future) for each candidate as they relate to the topic of The New World Order and/or Global Government. Perhaps you might like to see which candidate will fight for your constitutional rights if they were to become President?

Here is a little glimpse into Hillary...



Additional information regarding the Clintons is widely available. One intriguing piece is located on infowars.net from May 2006.

This piece cites multiple hypocritical moves lead by the Clintons, the Bushes and by elitists that once turned away from Hillary. One such elite is Rupert Murdoch.

"Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign, reports the Financial Times."

"Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery," wrote Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin. "She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day."

Another article by the Jeremiah Project represents the Clintons in the elitist membership of the Bilderbergs. Following this is a YouTube video describing the Bilderbergs on CNN World Business Today.

"Among the elitist membership or attendees at Bilderberg meetings is...Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin L. Powell, John Edwards...Alan Greenspan (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve), H. J. Heinz II (CEO of H. J. Heinz Company), Peter A. Thiel (Co-Founder, PayPal), Eric E. Schmidt (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Google), Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs), Rupert Murdoch, Donald E. Graham (Chairman of the Board of The Washington Post Company), William F. Buckley, Jr. (founder of National Review and former host of Firing Line)..."

So, what about Obama? The Chicago Defender quotes Dr. Cornel West of Princeton University as saying,

“We have been living for 40 years in a political, moral and spiritual ice age,” he told the congregation that included a number of candidates vying to take or retain office in the Super Tuesday elections. But a melt down, a phenomenon West, 54, said he didn't think he'd witness in his lifetime, is on the horizon. The professor of Religion called for a new world order, one that would begin with the election of Obama."

Here is a video showing a bit of the Obama agenda...



Additionally, who is Barack Obama's foreign advisor? Zbigniew Brzezinski. The same person who "published an essay in the summer issue of the journal Foreign Policy, defending a controversial new book about the power of the “Israel Lobby” in American politics", as stated in Politico

A little more on Zbigniew Brzezinski...

"In his 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski argued that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary in order to counter global instability erupting from increasing economic inequality. Out of this thesis, Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976. The Trilateral Commission is a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics primarily from the United States, Western Europe and Japan."

"After 9/11 Brzezinski was criticized for his role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which would later form the Taliban and would shelter Al Qaeda camps. He asserted that blame rightfully ought to be laid at the feet of the Soviet Union, whose invasion he claimed radicalized the relatively stable Muslim society."

"...a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama"

Well, the republican candidate, John McCain must have some dirt, doesn't he? Who doesn't?! The following video is an example of his change in opinion on certain issues.



An article entitled "Hillary of the Bilderberg Group Vs McCain the Rising Phoenix, A New World Order Change of Plans?" steps into McCain's background here.

"Lets take a step back and reflect on McCain through the words of the Time Magazine cover story.

“In the past decade he has joined with Democrats on a series of crusades in Congress — with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration reform — that a majority of Republicans have opposed. He voted against President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and ‘03, each time citing the need for fiscal restraint. And during his 2000 campaign, he labeled Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance.”

Here we have a so called Republican that has stood on the wrong side of “free speech” as was attacked via campaign finance reform and he tried to push illegal immigrant amnesty through a la the McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill that was shot down last year."

There are plenty of videos and articles both for and against each candidate. Each candidate "flip-flops" on issues throughout their years in Washington or other Government roles. Let's call it a "learning curve".

As far as the existing candidates, McCain has less to be unearthed than do those in the Democratic arena. It looks like we'll be forced to choose the candidate who is the lesser evil. Who will your lesser evil be?

Sources:

YouTube.com
infowars.net
www.jeremiahproject.com
www.chicagodefender.com
www.politico.com
wikipedia.org
salvationrevelation.com