• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*Update*Ethics reform bill stalled in the Senate

A

ayabe

Diamond Member
"Democrats failed to clear a crucial legislative hurdle when the Senate voted 51-46 to proceed with the bill that would have reduced the influence of lobbyists in shaping legislation and forced lawmakers to be more open about the pet projects they slip into legislation. Sixty-five votes were needed to advance the legislation.

With the vote, the bill was effectively driven from the Senate floor.

Republicans voted against the motion to proceed because they were upset that Democrats were blocking an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would have given the president authority, with the approval of Congress, to single out individual spending items in legislation for elimination."

Text


This is a disgrace, this has absolutely nothing to do with ethics reform, which is why these rider types of amendments should be eliminated completely.


***UPDATE***

"In the Senate, where the will of the minority must be heeded and the pace is far slower, lawmakers voted 96-2 for a far-reaching ethics and lobbying bill that will end the practices of lobbyists giving gifts and travel to senators and require lobbyists to be more open about their activities while making senators more accountable for the pet projects they sneak into bills.

It was the first major piece of legislation in the new Democratic-controlled Senate. It almost died Wednesday when Republicans balked at Democratic refusal to give them a vote on a proposal allowing the president, with congressional approval, to cherrypick for elimination specific spending items in bills.

The impasse was broken only when Democrats agreed that the modified line-item veto proposal can be introduced when the Senate takes up its minimum wage bill on Monday."

CNN

**************************************************************

So now the line item veto will be introduced along with the minimum wage bill? Again, this has nothing to do with the minimum wage. I believe the patrons of this bill know that it won't have a chance of passing if it stands on its own.
 
If the Dems have half a clue, which is doubtful, they will steal a page from the Republican playbook and hit the media in full force with a single, consistent message: Republican culture of corruption, unwilling to accept even modest ethics reforms to improve accountability, reduce reckless pork-barrel spending, and cut the influence of greedy corporate lobbyists. It would help if they sprinkle in frequent references to DeLay and Abramoff.
 
So the Dems want to kill/stall line item veto.

The Repub have a hissy fit and block ethics reform.

Does not look like either side really wants to change the status quo.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So the Dems want to kill/stall line item veto.

The Repub have a hissy fit and block ethics reform.

Does not look like either side really wants to change the status quo.
Click to expand...

One thing has nothing to do with the other. let them be in different bills. Why in the WORLD would they both be in the same bill!? What does ethics have to do with line item?

Ethics reform cannot be argued against as being a bad thing whereas line item can be btw.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So the Dems want to kill/stall line item veto.

The Repub have a hissy fit and block ethics reform.

Does not look like either side really wants to change the status quo.
Click to expand...


You can spin the corruption a lot better than a line item veto. The general populus is unhappy with the corruption (a big reason why gop got spanked in the last election), but I doubt most people even know what a line item veto is.
 
Good, If it takes a few more election cycles for the Republicans to get the message that the American people want ethics reform, so be it.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Does not look like either side really wants to change the status quo.
Click to expand...

Sad but true, the only difference between now and 6 months ago is that the R's would have ramrodded the amendment on there, the D's would have voted the bill down, and then the R's would be all over the media claiming the D's don't want ethics reform.

 
I wouldn't trust Bush with my car, much less a line item veto. Even disregarding GWB for a moment, a line item veto would effectively transfer a huge amount of power from the legislative branch to the executive. Potential scenario-Senator A's favorite projects are line item vetoed because he/she refused to vote for escalation of war in Iraq.

I think the GOP really misfired big time on this.

 
Excuse me---but what is this crapola---has not the supreme court already ruled that there is no such animal called a line item veto.

So this is a total Chimera.---an invented argument.

But now we have the play book---what ever is advanced by the house in the way of reform will die in the senate. The GWB veto pen can continue to gather dust.
 
They seem to be very carefully limiting this to spending bills, which AFAIK aren't allowed to be put to bed by the infamous signing statements. So it's not a blanket line item veto, it's just targeting spending bills, I guess that's why they think somehow people are going to buy it and therefore cement permanent extra-constitutional powers to the executive.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me---but what is this crapola---has not the supreme court already ruled that there is no such animal called a line item veto.

So this is a total Chimera.---an invented argument.

But now we have the play book---what ever is advanced by the house in the way of reform will die in the senate. The GWB veto pen can continue to gather dust.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that's why the "with congressional approval" part was added, it sounds like the president selectes the items to veto but the congress approves his doing so.

As others said, the line item veto is lousy, has no place in Bush's hnds, and is unrelated to this reform bill.

This is not 'neither side wantinf reform', this is the republicans blocking reform, period.

Whether the republicans' motive is to try to get the line item veto to kill democratic spending but not republican, to deny the democrats credit for ethics reform, or to find a way to block the reform of the corruption they thrive on by finding a phony 'principle' to hide behind instead of it being as clear why they are doing so, it's lousy.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
"Democrats failed to clear a crucial legislative hurdle when the Senate voted 51-46 to proceed with the bill that would have reduced the influence of lobbyists in shaping legislation and forced lawmakers to be more open about the pet projects they slip into legislation. Sixty-five votes were needed to advance the legislation.

With the vote, the bill was effectively driven from the Senate floor.

Republicans voted against the motion to proceed because they were upset that Democrats were blocking an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would have given the president authority, with the approval of Congress, to single out individual spending items in legislation for elimination."

Text


This is a disgrace, this has absolutely nothing to do with ethics reform, which is why these rider types of amendments should be eliminated completely.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the line veto is essentially a tool to stop "spending amendments" from being tacked on to completely unrelated bills.

 
Where is the spending in a lobbying reform bill?---all it limits is what the lobbist can spend
to bribe our legislators.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
"Democrats failed to clear a crucial legislative hurdle when the Senate voted 51-46 to proceed with the bill that would have reduced the influence of lobbyists in shaping legislation and forced lawmakers to be more open about the pet projects they slip into legislation. Sixty-five votes were needed to advance the legislation.

With the vote, the bill was effectively driven from the Senate floor.

Republicans voted against the motion to proceed because they were upset that Democrats were blocking an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would have given the president authority, with the approval of Congress, to single out individual spending items in legislation for elimination."

Text


This is a disgrace, this has absolutely nothing to do with ethics reform, which is why these rider types of amendments should be eliminated completely.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the line veto is essentially a tool to stop "spending amendments" from being tacked on to completely unrelated bills.
Click to expand...

Yes that's true, but it's more likely to be used for far more sinister purposes.
 
Yes that's true, but it's more likely to be used for far more sinister purposes.
Click to expand...


Damn right. Americans need only look as far as the War Powers Act to get an idea about how wrong this could go.


This admin has been waging a long assault on checks and balances, giving it a line-item veto would be lunacy.
 
speaking of bills that shouldn't be associated with each other.....

if you really want to see the repubs squirm, I say that the democrats that should introduce a bill that would roll back ALL of bushes tax cuts to the top 1% and in return cut the tax rates by x% (let's say 2-3) for the rest of the tax brackets. I'd like to see them squirm with that one since it is a play straight out of the GOP handbook.
 
Ironically, the line veto is essentially a tool to stop "spending amendments" from being tacked on to completely unrelated bills.
Click to expand...

It's essentially more of a tool than that- something the Repubs know full well. If they want to stop the practice of such attachments, they could have done so when they were in the majority. They never proposed it...

Face it, what they're trying to do is essentially to make similar unrelated attachments to the ethics measure...

Pretty transparent, like attaching an end to estate taxes to a measure to raise the minimum wage...

Dems can only hope to stop the bleeding over the next 2 years, put the repubs in the position of embarassing themselves over and over again, as this fracas does rather nicely. It'll take even greater electoral victories in 2008 to begin the real healing process, and I'm confident that Repubs will unwittingly provide ample opportunity...

You don't need to be able to read Morse code to see that America sent out a message last November. Repubs are somehow not quite getting it, which is really just as well...
 
Reid and Gregg were close to an agreement where the line-item veto proposal would come to the floor this spring, but Reid said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a staunch opponent of ceding any legislative control over the purse to the president, objected.
Click to expand...
Well this explains quite a bit doesn?t it?

The Republicans had to insert the measure into this bill because the king of pork himself did not want to ?cede? any control over the purse to the president. I assume Byrd did this because he is afraid one of the many roads, libraries, bridges or research centers named after him might lose its funding.

And for all of you bitching about Republican tactics I am sure they we can find plenty of examples of the Democrats doing the same thing when they were the minority party.
 
Uh, wasn't line-item veto declared unconstitutional? If not, it should be. I realize the GOP want to turn over all Congressional power to Mr. Bush, but come on. Do they have to be so transparent about it?
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Does not look like either side really wants to change the status quo.
Click to expand...

Sad but true, the only difference between now and 6 months ago is that the R's would have ramrodded the amendment on there, the D's would have voted the bill down, and then the R's would be all over the media claiming the D's don't want ethics reform.
Click to expand...

Would you want a dem. president with a republican house to hold the power of the line item veto?
 
There are still moving vans down at K-street. There is no law against former republicans registering democratic. And they are all waiting for the legislation to be
passed---a crucial first step in figuring a way around it.

But at the end of the day---the dems will have done more in a few weeks than Repubs have done in 12 years.

And the only thing that will pry lobbing money in the republican direction is blocking lobbying reform.
 
Nice set of Duh-versions, ProfJohn.

The Line item veto measure can't possibly pass on its own merits, and likely wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, anyway. So it's just more mock-piety posturing from our Repub friends. Having successfully looted the Treasury for the last 6 years, they now want to offer up the appearance of fiscal responsibility- cutting services for the poor after instituting welfare for the Rich... handing the lameduck GWB the hatchet.

Adding the usual non-specific "they're just as bad!" apologism merely confirms the sleazy nature of the moves in question. Repubs desperately want to stop reform, still pander to their base and look good doing so... This was the best they could come up with, which is still utterly transparent to all but their most ardent believers...

 
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Does not look like either side really wants to change the status quo.
Click to expand...

Sad but true, the only difference between now and 6 months ago is that the R's would have ramrodded the amendment on there, the D's would have voted the bill down, and then the R's would be all over the media claiming the D's don't want ethics reform.
Click to expand...

Would you want a dem. president with a republican house to hold the power of the line item veto?
Click to expand...

No, I don't want any line item veto period, I think it's unconstitutional for whatever that's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top