[quote]dhickey wrote:
line item veto.
[/quote]
Too late. It was ruled unconstitutional.
EDIT: Perhaps congress could pass a law forbidding the addition of spending riders to any bill up for a vote. But that would be like having a crack whore promise not to do crack.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
line item veto.
Too late. It was ruled unconstitutional.
EDIT: Perhaps congress could pass a law forbidding the addition of spending riders to any bill up for a vote. But that would be like having a crack whore promise not to do crack. [/quote]
Very true. But it’s an idea.
As bad as pork is, the line item veto is not the way to deal with it and was very rightly ruled unconstitutional. It would not be limited to pork. The president could excise any aspect of a Bill he (she) did not like.
He could purport to pass a Bill authorized by Congress that was in fact greatly altered and little resembled the Bill both houses of Congress authorized. Pretty much makes a mockery of the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I said I wouldn’t debate it and I won’t. I’ll just say one thing.
There’s no reason why abusive federal spending and innappropriate free-for-alls for the States can’t BOTH be fought against.
Good luck trying to fight it at a constitutional level. I see it as totally misguided and a waste of efforts that could be geared towards achieving fiscal responsibility.
And when has pork been found unconstitutional? Good luck fighting that too, I guess.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here exactly. Have a nice saturday night…[/quote]
You wished me luck fighting the horrible interpretation of “General Welfare,” at a constitutional level. I wished you the same in trying to fight pork at a constitutional level.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I said I wouldn’t debate it and I won’t. I’ll just say one thing.
There’s no reason why abusive federal spending and innappropriate free-for-alls for the States can’t BOTH be fought against.
Good luck trying to fight it at a constitutional level. I see it as totally misguided and a waste of efforts that could be geared towards achieving fiscal responsibility.
And when has pork been found unconstitutional? Good luck fighting that too, I guess.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here exactly. Have a nice saturday night…
You wished me luck fighting the horrible interpretation of “General Welfare,” at a constitutional level. I wished you the same in trying to fight pork at a constitutional level. [/quote]
Except I specifically said I’m not arguing against pork at the constitutional level.
Just because something is constitutional certainly doesn’t mean its good government. It doesn’t even mean steps shouldn’t be taken to make it illegal. Most things that are illegal are not unconstitutional.
While we’re on the subject, I’m not sure why you used Medicare as an example of something that doesn’t benefit you. Maybe you meant Medicaid.
With Medicare, you pay in now to receive later. Every citizen over 65 is eligible for Medicare. If you live that wrong and assuming it’s still around, you will get it.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I said I wouldn’t debate it and I won’t. I’ll just say one thing.
There’s no reason why abusive federal spending and innappropriate free-for-alls for the States can’t BOTH be fought against.
Good luck trying to fight it at a constitutional level. I see it as totally misguided and a waste of efforts that could be geared towards achieving fiscal responsibility.
And when has pork been found unconstitutional? Good luck fighting that too, I guess.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here exactly. Have a nice saturday night…
You wished me luck fighting the horrible interpretation of “General Welfare,” at a constitutional level. I wished you the same in trying to fight pork at a constitutional level.
Except I specifically said I’m not arguing against pork at the constitutional level.
Just because something is constitutional certainly doesn’t mean its good government. It doesn’t even mean steps shouldn’t be taken to make it illegal. Most things that are illegal are not unconstitutional. [/quote]
Right, and using General Welfare as some sort of ok to implement and run entitlement programs isn’t good government.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
While we’re on the subject, I’m not sure why you used Medicare as an example of something that doesn’t benefit you. Maybe you meant Medicaid.
With Medicare, you pay in now to receive later. Every citizen over 65 is eligible for Medicare. If you live that wrong and assuming it’s still around, you will get it.[/quote]
It doesn’t benefit me. I don’t recieve it, and if I did, it’s a horrible program. I don’t want to participate in it, I won’t use it, and I don’t want to be robbed to fund it. I could do much better with my own money, therefore, it does nothing for my welfare. In fact, it harms me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I said I wouldn’t debate it and I won’t. I’ll just say one thing.
There’s no reason why abusive federal spending and innappropriate free-for-alls for the States can’t BOTH be fought against.
Good luck trying to fight it at a constitutional level. I see it as totally misguided and a waste of efforts that could be geared towards achieving fiscal responsibility.
And when has pork been found unconstitutional? Good luck fighting that too, I guess.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here exactly. Have a nice saturday night…
You wished me luck fighting the horrible interpretation of “General Welfare,” at a constitutional level. I wished you the same in trying to fight pork at a constitutional level.
Except I specifically said I’m not arguing against pork at the constitutional level.
Just because something is constitutional certainly doesn’t mean its good government. It doesn’t even mean steps shouldn’t be taken to make it illegal. Most things that are illegal are not unconstitutional.
Right, and using General Welfare as some sort of ok to implement and run entitlement programs isn’t good government.[/quote]
Never said that it was. I said it was a waste of time to complain about a long-accepted constitutional interpretation that allows the government to tax and spend on more than a specifically enumerated list in the constitution. Rather than focusing on combatting fiscal irresponsibility and government waste on a practical level.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
While we’re on the subject, I’m not sure why you used Medicare as an example of something that doesn’t benefit you. Maybe you meant Medicaid.
With Medicare, you pay in now to receive later. Every citizen over 65 is eligible for Medicare. If you live that wrong and assuming it’s still around, you will get it.
It doesn’t benefit me. I don’t recieve it, and if I did, it’s a horrible program. I don’t want to participate in it, I won’t use it, and I don’t want to be robbed to fund it. I could do much better with my own money, therefore, it does nothing for my welfare. In fact, it harms me.[/quote]
Hmm…so when you reach the age of 65 you will continue to pay private insurance even though you’ve already paid your share to Medicare and will thus receive many of your needs for free, including prescription drugs these days? Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.
I could see modifications such as making it an opt-in/out-out program. People can choose not to contribute but then will have to pay their own insurance after the age of 65 for the rest of their life. But there are practical difficulties to this approach.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
While we’re on the subject, I’m not sure why you used Medicare as an example of something that doesn’t benefit you. Maybe you meant Medicaid.
With Medicare, you pay in now to receive later. Every citizen over 65 is eligible for Medicare. If you live that wrong and assuming it’s still around, you will get it.
It doesn’t benefit me. I don’t recieve it, and if I did, it’s a horrible program. I don’t want to participate in it, I won’t use it, and I don’t want to be robbed to fund it. I could do much better with my own money, therefore, it does nothing for my welfare. In fact, it harms me.
Hmm…so when you reach the age of 65 you will continue to pay private insurance even though you’ve already paid your share to Medicare and will thus receive many of your needs for free, including prescription drugs these days? Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.
I could see modifications such as making it an opt-in/out-out program. People can choose not to contribute but then will have to pay their own insurance after the age of 65 for the rest of their life. But there are practical difficulties to this approach.[/quote]
Fiscal irresponsibility? Medicare/aid and Social Security are the biggest examples of Fiscal irresponsiblity in our budget. From a period in our history of not spending a single dime on these entitlement programs, towards 2040, where they’ll pretty much consume our entire budget. I call it moral and fiscal responsibility to reject Medicare. Because we aren’t paying our “fair” share, the next generation will foot the bill.
pork? as in earmarks? The stuff that is worth 3%-5% of our budget?
I’d dare say we need a hell of a lot more than just pork removal to turn things around.