Gates wants veto of defense spending bill if unwanted projects remain

[Vette73]

Typical liberal tactic: bitch and moan about a few million here and there to maintain the illusion of fiscal responsibility while jamming TRILLIONS down our throat.

$500 million is balls in the scope of the entire bill and budget as a whole.

I am guessing you did not read what Gates said and/or know anything about this. He, Gates a Republican, wants to cut BILLIONS from the DoD budget.

 

[drebo]

I am guessing you did not read what Gates said and/or know anything about this. He, Gates a Republican, wants to cut BILLIONS from the DoD budget.

The days when Republican = Conservative are over.

He's bitching about two line items that don't total very much in the scope of things.

 

[werepossum]

We desperately need a line item veto, even though it will now take an Amendment to the Constitution. That would take care of many of these items.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The days when Republican = Conservative are over.

He's bitching about two line items that don't total very much in the scope of things.

It is more than two items. Those are examples that the people can easily see how Congress is trying to ramrod the budget and push things that are not needed just for political benefit.

In the first term under Bush Jr; there were projects that were determined to be obsolete and were pulled. There you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress. One would think, that such wold be inconceivable.

Here you have the reverse and Congress is balking. will the administration have the commitment to stand up for to Congress finally?

 

[3chordcharlie]

We desperately need a line item veto, even though it will now take an Amendment to the Constitution. That would take care of many of these items.

You want this so that every bill can be turned on its head after it is passed?

It's an absolutely terrible idea, unless you have ultimate faith in the person who holds the veto.

 

[jhu]

What I don't understand is why Congress won't let our allies buy F-22s. Japan, Israel, Australia, etc. want this thing, but we won't sell it to them?

 

[Schadenfroh]

What I don't understand is why Congress won't let our allies buy F-22s. Japan, Israel, Australia, etc. want this thing, but we won't sell it to them?

People fear that our allies (or some of their people working on them) might sell the plane's secrets to China, Russia, etc. They also fear that we might lose our edge. However, it should be noted that the version we would sell our NATO and pacific allies would not be the same as the ones that we use. The export version would be gimped to ensure US superiority. They want them to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but it is not an air-superiority fighter like the F-22.

That being said, I would love to see Japan and South Korea stock up on the export version. I wonder how badly it would piss off China if we sold Taiwan a crap load of them?

 

[werepossum]

You want this so that every bill can be turned on its head after it is passed?

It's an absolutely terrible idea, unless you have ultimate faith in the person who holds the veto.

I want every spending line item subject to a presidential veto, yes. It makes no difference who is the president, if the line item is popular enough Congress could override his or her veto. Just another brick in our blessed gridlock.

 

[werepossum]

People fear that our allies (or some of their people working on them) might sell the plane's secrets to China, Russia, etc. They also fear that we might lose our edge. However, it should be noted that the version we would sell our NATO and pacific allies would not be the same as the ones that we use. The export version would be gimped to ensure US superiority. They want them to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but it is not an air-superiority fighter like the F-22.

That being said, I would love to see Japan and South Korea stock up on the export version. I wonder how badly it would piss off China if we sold Taiwan a crap load of them?

I'd love to see our better allies offered the true version as well. Whatever secrets we might lose have doubtless already been stolen by the Red Chinese, Russia doesn't need them, and it would offset our monumental development costs and might allow us to replace our old air superiority fighters one for one rather than one for three.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I want every spending line item subject to a presidential veto, yes. It makes no difference who is the president, if the line item is popular enough Congress could override his or her veto. Just another brick in our blessed gridlock.

Mindblowing.

 

[nonlnear]

I want every spending line item subject to a presidential veto, yes. It makes no difference who is the president, if the line item is popular enough Congress could override his or her veto. Just another brick in our blessed gridlock.

This post is political porn. Although with a line item veto I would prefer the threshold to break a veto to be dropped a bit. Maybe 60%, so that a filibuster-proof bill is a veto proof bill (speaking only for the Senate of course).

 

[werepossum]

This post is political porn. Although with a line item veto I would prefer the threshold to break a veto to be dropped a bit. Maybe 60%, so that a filibuster-proof bill is a veto proof bill (speaking only for the Senate of course).

Political porn? Are we pleased or frightened?

60% works for me. The main thing is to get politicians to vote on the pork separately, on its own merits. It would of course devolve to the President eliminating the other side's pork, but half the pork beats all the pork.

 

[nonlnear]

Political porn? Are we pleased or frightened?

Political porn as in it gets me all worked up. So, pleased it is.

60% works for me. The main thing is to get politicians to vote on the pork separately, on its own merits. It would of course devolve to the President eliminating the other side's pork, but half the pork beats all the pork.

Exactly. I was actually about to post something to this effect: that another byproduct of a structure like this would be essentially an end to the disgusting tradition of omnibus bills and other off topic amendments. Sure they would still be used to avoid the necessity of three readings for every little one, but it would eliminate all the "I'll let your district rape the country if you let mine" wheeling and dealing because each item would have to stand on its own merits. Glad to see you spotted it in its full effect as well.

 

[werepossum]

Political porn as in it gets me all worked up. So, pleased it is.

Exactly. I was actually about to post something to this effect: that another byproduct of a structure like this would be essentially an end to the disgusting tradition of omnibus bills and other off topic amendments. Sure they would still be used to avoid the necessity of three readings for every little one, but it would eliminate all the "I'll let your district rape the country if you let mine" wheeling and dealing because each item would have to stand on its own merits. Glad to see you spotted it in its full effect as well.

Glad we agree.

 

[nonlnear]

View Post
I want every spending line item subject to a presidential veto, yes. It makes no difference who is the president, if the line item is popular enough Congress could override his or her veto. Just another brick in our blessed gridlock.

...

Glad we agree.

I think the only thing that could make a system like that any better would be to elect zombie Grover Cleveland!

 

[werepossum]

i think the only thing that could make a system like that any better would be to elect zombie grover cleveland!

lol

 

[ebaycj]

Line item veto comes with its own set of issues, which are much worse than the 'all or nothing' approach currently used. You might as well have the president write the budget himself as have line item veto. It's a very paternalistic sort of tool.

What is needed is a greater expectation that veto will be used, including on 'good' bills that have unrelated garbage attached. The president should adopt a policy of vetoing any bill that is not concise, and has pet projects attached to it; even if they would support the add-on project on its own.

Refuse to pass anything with junk attached, and junk will no longer be included in bills.

This * 10000

 

[EagleKeeper]

Line item veto comes with its own set of issues, which are much worse than the 'all or nothing' approach currently used. You might as well have the president write the budget himself as have line item veto. It's a very paternalistic sort of tool.

What is needed is a greater expectation that veto will be used, including on 'good' bills that have unrelated garbage attached. The president should adopt a policy of vetoing any bill that is not concise, and has pet projects attached to it; even if they would support the add-on project on its own.

Refuse to pass anything with junk attached, and junk will no longer be included in bills.

This * 10000

And then publicly identify each/every item that is the reason for the veto along with the sponsor.

 

[nonlnear]

Line item veto comes with its own set of issues, which are much worse than the 'all or nothing' approach currently used. You might as well have the president write the budget himself as have line item veto. It's a very paternalistic sort of tool.

What is needed is a greater expectation that veto will be used, including on 'good' bills that have unrelated garbage attached. The president should adopt a policy of vetoing any bill that is not concise, and has pet projects attached to it; even if they would support the add-on project on its own.

Refuse to pass anything with junk attached, and junk will no longer be included in bills.

This * 10000

Just to be clear, I think there are much better ways to correct the problems with Congressional process than a line item veto. I agree it continues the recent trend of putting too much legislative power in the hand of the POTUS. It's just fun to fantasize sometimes... You know, the "well we've got to do something" mentality. Ironically that one is parroted by Congress from time to time!

 

[ElFenix]

We desperately need a line item veto, even though it will now take an Amendment to the Constitution. That would take care of many of these items.

you can accomplish the same thing which, while not a veto, would meet the requirements. how it would work:
spending bill passes through the congress
president gets it and crosses out what he doesn't want
congress yes/no vote, no amendments, no debate
presentment
signing.