Should Earmarks be Banned

[chaplainson]

So this came up as a problem a little while ago, so here's what I want to know.

Should the President be given the power to veto a part of a bill because it doesn't relate to the topic of the bill. I.E. Farm subsidies in the Iraq funding bill.

The government spends a lot of extra money on earmark projects, but people pass the bill to gain support, but should the President be able to veto an earmark, so that the main topic of a bill passes, without the extra spending.

[iclaudius]

The line item veto power has the potential to be abused. It appears to be impossible to pass a law delineating what, specifically, is an acceptable subject for such a privilege, so it seems like the best course of action would be to find another way to get those earmarks taken out.

[chaplainson]

Excuse me, the word veto may be a little strong, but allow the President to put a section of a bill itself up for re-election, and if Congress fails to pass the section (50% is good enough), then the bill continues without it, if they do, the section passes, as long as there is regulation that it must be a section that has nothing to do with the overall topic of the bill.

[iclaudius]

Well, actually, that's what it's called.

But anyway, what is the brightline for "nothing to do with the bill"? Should congress be given the power to void anything in the bill? What if it cripples what the bill is supposed to do, and they don't realize it?

[chaplainson]

Quote by: iclaudius Well, actually, that's what it's called. But anyway, what is the brightline for "nothing to do with the bill"? Should congress be given the power to void anything in the bill? What if it cripples what the bill is supposed to do, and they don't realize it?

Congress has the power to nullify anything in a bill, heck, they created the bill, and really have full power over the content. here's the type of material that would constitute as earmark.

There was a bill put to Congress about the funding of the war in Iraq. There was a clause in the bill that appropriated 1.7 Billion for agricultural subsidies in the US. These subsidies had nothing to do with the funding for Iraq, but were used to help either buy votes from some senators/representatives or to gain support for those people by making their people happy. This type of spending should be targetted.

However, it was in the news recently that a National Guard unit in Georgia was not getting enough new equipment to prepare thmeselves for Iraq. If the bill had given them 1.7 Billion for new equipment, that would be acceptable since that money would be used for the armed forces in general, and since they might deploy for Iraq, it is part of the subject.

[iclaudius]

No, sorry, I actually meant to ask if the president should have the ability to selectively veto parts of a bill. My mistake, sorry.

[Athena]

Quote by: chaplainson So this came up as a problem a little while ago, so here's what I want to know. Should the President be given the power to veto a part of a bill because it doesn't relate to the topic of the bill. I.E. Farm subsidies in the Iraq funding bill. The government spends a lot of extra money on earmark projects, but people pass the bill to gain support, but should the President be able to veto an earmark, so that the main topic of a bill passes, without the extra spending.

No bill should include anything that is not essential to the bill. I don't care how the adding of unrelated stuff is stopped as long as it is stopped. In fact, I am so against adding on unrelated stuff, I would be in favor of shooting the person who does add something unrelated to a bill.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Athena No bill should include anything that is not essential to the bill. I don't care how the adding of unrelated stuff is stopped as long as it is stopped. In fact, I am so against adding on unrelated stuff, I would be in favor of shooting the person who does add something unrelated to a bill.

Heh, are you coming around, or have we just stumbled upon a hot button issue with you.


Thats the kind of talk I like to hear.

[chaplainson]

No, sorry, I actually meant to ask if the president should have the ability to selectively veto parts of a bill. My mistake, sorry.

No currenty the President can sign it, let it sit, or veto the bill as a whole. And most Presidents don't veto over small earmarks, because of all the debate that went into getting the bill where it is now.

However I think the President should have that power, so he can say, this part has nothing to do with the bill as a whole, and taking it out won't affect the bill any. That section alone goes back to Congress, the House votes, Senate votes, simple majority yes or no. If no, the rest of the bill passes, assuming the President signs or lets it sit, and if yes, then it rejoins as part of the bill, and the President can sign off on it as it was before.

[iclaudius]

I know what the current laws are, but think carefully about giving this ability to the president. It's a tremendous and currently unconstitutional power. Whether or not it is used properly now does not preclude the possibility of abuse later.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: chaplainson So this came up as a problem a little while ago, so here's what I want to know. Should the President be given the power to veto a part of a bill because it doesn't relate to the topic of the bill. I.E. Farm subsidies in the Iraq funding bill. The government spends a lot of extra money on earmark projects, but people pass the bill to gain support, but should the President be able to veto an earmark, so that the main topic of a bill passes, without the extra spending.

Clinton got the Republican congress to approve the line item veto during his first term on the condition that it would only apply to the "next president".

The arrogant Republicans, certain that Clinton would not be re-elected, agreed.

But Clinton WAS re-elected (and if the constitution allowed he'd probably still be president today, see FDR) and he got the veto power, which of course, congress quickly removed.

[xyzer]

No bill should include anything that is not essential to the bill. I don't care how the adding of unrelated stuff is stopped as long as it is stopped. In fact, I am so against adding on unrelated stuff, I would be in favor of shooting the person who does add something unrelated to a bill.

I agree Athena. There is a House Rule about 'germaneness.Line items in a Bill are supposed to be relevant(germane) to the main subject of the Bill. Problem is, its ignored and thats why all sorts of pork(earmarks) is inserted into many Bills.

Pelosi was harping about this a few weeks back. But her remarks were ignored and quickly faded. I think that was about the 20 billion in earmarks added to an emergency military appropriation bill? Most of that money was for other purposes and designed as a sop for constituents.

[Zeebadee]

Earmarks are here to stay as long as this country is run by the two major parties. They do what they want, no matter what the citizens say or do. Think you can just vote the big spenders out in the next election? Think again, we just elected a bunch that were going to make earmarks and their sponsors easily identifiable. Sure we did.

"After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them."
My Way News - Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters

[xyzer]

One of my favorite quotes about Congress is this one by Mark Twain..
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctively native American criminal class except Congress".

He was right!

[Osborn F Enready]

Earmarks should be banned, buried and forgotten.

[brien]

You are referring to the line item veto, or however you defined it, and absolutely yes, it should be offered to the executive's office to eliminate "pork" and wasteful spending.

Zee's post prety much covers my ideas.