Mitt Romney is a line item veto fan? What a con!

[johnwk]

Well, we now have a line-item veto con artist running for President. Mitt Romney has stated that if line item veto power were available to the President, it would be “the most powerful tool a president of the United States could have to rein in unnecessary pork barrel, earmarked spending." SEE: Romney hits Giuliani on line-item veto

The truth is, if line item veto were available to the executive branch of our federal government, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself, so, let us start from the beginning because understanding our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, expose those who are attempting to subjugate the very foundations our Republican Form of Government is built upon.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress

''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__''

No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and signing a bill so amended into law.

Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power as is now proposed by Mitt Romney.

Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:

''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

The Convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail which line-item veto most assuredly would resurrect and Romney supports!

If Romney is sincere in wanting to control reckless spending and borrowing, and encourage Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, he ought to be promoting our Founding Father’s plan, and in particular, the founder’s method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress’s pork barrel spending. This method would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to finance its pork during the course of a fiscal year!

Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to pay for its pork, Congress was then intended to lay a direct tax among the states for the total sum of the deficit created.

To insure protection against the abuse of the direct taxing power, our founding fathers also provided a fair share formula to be followed which determines each State`s share of the tax whenever Congress decides to call upon the people of the various States to extinguish a deficit created by Congress.


Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, that fair share formula may be represented as follows:


State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population



The theory of the founder`s fair share formula is based upon a conservative idea Representation with proportional obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread with a passion!

After determining each state`s share of the sum to be raised using the fair share formula, each state`s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill for their state`s share of the tax and the various state Governors and Legislatures are to be left with the responsibility of transferring their state`s share from the state treasury into the treasury of the United States, or, raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the treasury of the United States. For documentation of this tax being practiced see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each state`s share of the tax. Also see:Section 7 of direct tax of 1813allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

Those who view themselves as being ``conservatives`` should ask themselves what would happen to the king of pork, the pride and joy of Pennsylvania, Representative John Murtha, if he should have to return home with a bill for his state Governor and Legislature to pay to finance the millions and millions of pork barrel earmarks he now channels to his district by plundering the federal treasury?


The point is, our founder`s plan provides a very real moment of accountability when Congress engages in reckless spending and borrowing, and yet, not one of our Republican candidates running for the Presidency dare to promote our Constitution’s solution to pork barrel borrowing and spending.

Under the Founder’s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a “United Nations” [a money laundering operation] are to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the apportioned tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!



Bottom line

We don’t need a line item veto power being exercise by the Executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the national Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want.

What we need is for our Republican candidates to support and defend our existing Constitution and the solutions our founding fathers wrote into that instrument to make members of Congress the servants of the people and not their masters.


Regards,

JWK


The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

[bishop]

what do they even need a line item veto for when they're always inserting signing statements to modify the legislation?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop what do they even need a line item veto for when they're always inserting signing statements to modify the legislation?

Perhaps for the same reason they pretend to have constituents that they represent, it makes the fantasy seem more complete.

[Osborn F Enready]

Romney is just another face of the corruption, and he is a total party puppet.

[johnwk]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Romney is just another face of the corruption, and he is a total party puppet.

The Republican Party leadership is part of the Washington Establishment’s Empire along with the leadership of the Democrat party___ together they make one big happy party on Capitol Hill while making Mary and Joe Sixpack their personal tax slaves!

I wonder if the average voter has ever considered how the Washington Establishment profits by expanding its powers? The expansion of powers allows the Washington Establishment to tighten its grip over the American people and make them their personal tax slaves! It’s as simple as that!

For those who do not realize they have been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders, maybe this will get your attention.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,715,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or stop working for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.

Mary and Joe Sixpack’s average annual wage amounts to approximately $40-45 K

In addition, here are other federal employee ``benefits``:

Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan..


Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employees contribution.

Also under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.

And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon. <Snip> The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the article meant to state is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to federal employees and their families.


And you think Mary and Joe Sixpack have not been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders?

``He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance`` ___Declaration of Independence



JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then get them to use their vote to control and enslave the remaining 49 percent of America’s population.

[xyzer]

The "Founding Fathers Plan" is an intriguing idea but Johnwk we must face reality, the current system doesn't adhere to it! Thus the line item veto is an excellent tool and much simpler!. e.g. the latest Democrat sponsored outrage(update of the SCHIP program) would give healthcare assistance to poor families defined as families making up to $80,000 per year? and young children defined as including 19 to 26 year olds? What are these crooks doing to our pocket books? Wouldn't it be much less disruptive if Bush could just veto those two outrages? Instead he has to veto the whole thing and the long process goes on again? What a waste? But the Democrats scream that Bush isn't for the children?
Earmarks are another prime example? They are commonly inserted in appropriation bills and have no relationship to the main bill. Money for a bridge to nowhere innserted in a military emergency appropriation bill? Would it not be a lot simpler for the Pres to just veto such egregious line items?

[Chancellor]

Slick Willie Clinton also favored the line-item veto. SCOTUS shot it down:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto - June 25, 1998

[GHook93]

The line item veto is already been deemed unconstitutional by thge Supreme Court; therefore, its moot.

Instead of bashing Romney praise him for the tangible accomplishment he achieved:
(1) The first State run universal healthcare system
(2) Taking a State (Mass) far in the red, with a deficit that Bush would praise, and turning it around into the black.
(3) Unlike Bush his Corp and Company managment record is one that Buffet would admire.

If you want the economic and healthcare candidate, then Romney is your man!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor Slick Willie Clinton also favored the line-item veto. SCOTUS shot it down: Supreme Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto - June 25, 1998

You can't blame Clinton for using what was there! It was the Republican administration that created it. Clinton gets the blame for using it first, but the elephants in the room are the ones that got it approved through Congress!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 You can't blame Clinton for using what was there! It was the Republican administration that created it. Clinton gets the blame for using it first, but the elephants in the room are the ones that got it approved through Congress!

You don't get it. Congress had been trying to get a line-item veto passed since the Reagan Administration and it finally took a Republican Congress to do it. SCOTUS shot it down.

In theory, the line-item veto makes sense. Other than the very narrow issue of constitutionality, I don't have a problem with it. However, if the federal government wants a President to have that power, there must be a constitutional amendment passed and ratified.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 The line item veto is already been deemed unconstitutional by thge Supreme Court; therefore, its moot. Instead of bashing Romney praise him for the tangible accomplishment he achieved: (1) The first State run universal healthcare system

You call that an accomplishment?

(2) Taking a State (Mass) far in the red, with a deficit that Bush would praise, and turning it around into the black.

Other governors have done the same.

(3) Unlike Bush his Corp and Company managment record is one that Buffet would admire.

Buffet's admiration is meaningless.

If you want the economic and healthcare candidate, then Romney is your man!

If you want that kind of socialist federal government crap, get the hell out of my country and move to Canada, Europe or some other socialist haven - or at least amend the Constitution.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor You don't get it. Congress had been trying to get a line-item veto passed since the Reagan Administration and it finally took a Republican Congress to do it. SCOTUS shot it down. In theory, the line-item veto makes sense. Other than the very narrow issue of constitutionality, I don't have a problem with it. However, if the federal government wants a President to have that power, there must be a constitutional amendment passed and ratified.

Are you kidding that it makes sense? It infringes on the separation of powers. I am STRONGLY against the President having the power to change anything in a bill that passed through Congress!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 Are you kidding that it makes sense? It infringes on the separation of powers. I am STRONGLY against the President having the power to change anything in a bill that passed through Congress!

Notice what I said:

In theory, the line-item veto makes sense. Other than the very narrow issue of constitutionality, I don't have a problem with it. However, if the federal government wants a President to have that power, there must be a constitutional amendment passed and ratified.


If the Constitution is amended to allow for line-item veto then it wouldn't violate the separation of powers.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor You don't get it. Congress had been trying to get a line-item veto passed since the Reagan Administration and it finally took a Republican Congress to do it. SCOTUS shot it down. In theory, the line-item veto makes sense. Other than the very narrow issue of constitutionality, I don't have a problem with it. However, if the federal government wants a President to have that power, there must be a constitutional amendment passed and ratified.

I guess I jumped on that too quickly my bad!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor You call that an accomplishment? Other governors have done the same. Buffet's admiration is meaningless. If you want that kind of socialist federal government crap, get the hell out of my country and move to Canada, Europe or some other socialist haven - or at least amend the Constitution.

Let me guess who your going for Ron "F'ing" Paul! Probably the worst candidate of either party!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: johnwk The Republican Party leadership is part of the Washington Establishment’s Empire along with the leadership of the Democrat party___ together they make one big happy party on Capitol Hill while making Mary and Joe Sixpack their personal tax slaves! I wonder if the average voter has ever considered how the Washington Establishment profits by expanding its powers? The expansion of powers allows the Washington Establishment to tighten its grip over the American people and make them their personal tax slaves! It’s as simple as that! For those who do not realize they have been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders, maybe this will get your attention. FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW Mary and Joe Sixpack’s average annual wage amounts to approximately $40-45 K In addition, here are other federal employee ``benefits``: Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan. Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.. Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employees contribution. Also under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks. And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums What the article meant to state is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to federal employees and their families. And you think Mary and Joe Sixpack have not been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders? ``He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance`` ___Declaration of Independence JWK If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then get them to use their vote to control and enslave the remaining 49 percent of America’s population.

Of course, federal employees make an average of 23 percent less than their private sector counterparts, the Federal Salary Council announced Wednesday.

The body, an independent group of salary experts, employee representatives and federal officials that makes determinations each year on the allocations of locality pay, said at its annual meeting that the average gap widened by 6 percentage points from last year.

The council uses data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the National Compensation Survey to determine the pay gap. Unlike previous years, however, this year's data included small private sector establishments with 50 or fewer employees, resulting in pay gaps averaging 1.6 percentage points higher than when such establishments were not included.

You can't just take a general average of federal salaries (which include salaries for a large number of attorneys and a number of other professionals) and try to compare them to a general average of private sector salaries (which has an overall smaller percentage of such professionals). You have to compare job to job, e.g. an attorney working for the government with an attorney working in the private sector; a secretarial position with a secretarial position (and I don't mean cabinet Secretaries), etc.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 Let me guess who your going for Ron "F'ing" Paul! Probably the worst candidate of either party!

Actually, no. I am not going to change my party affiliation in order to vote for Ron Paul.

Why do you have such animosity toward someone who wants to bring the federal government back within its constitutional bounds?

[BobbyO]

The way around would be to repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and return to the executive the authority it had had since 1787- to allow it to "impound" appropriated monies and refuse to spend, at its discretion.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: BobbyO The way around would be to repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and return to the executive the authority it had had since 1787- to allow it to "impound" appropriated monies and refuse to spend, at its discretion.

Impoundment authority didn't end. See the following: Evolution Of The Budget Process -- Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

"The Act also codified the President's impoundment authority (in Title X, also known as the Impoundment Control Act), dividing impoundments into two distinct classes with different procedures for congressional consideration: rescissions, (or permanent cancellations, of budget authority (which would require congressional approval), and temporary deferrals of expenditures (which would remain in force unless rejected by Congress). Jurisdiction over both rescissions and deferrals was assigned to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate."

By the way, where does Article II of the Constitution say the President has impoundment authority? Also, take note of Article I, Section 7:

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."

Nothing about impoundment there either.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Chancellor Impoundment authority didn't end. See the following: Evolution Of The Budget Process -- Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 "The Act also codified the President's impoundment authority (in Title X, also known as the Impoundment Control Act), dividing impoundments into two distinct classes with different procedures for congressional consideration: rescissions, (or permanent cancellations, of budget authority (which would require congressional approval), and temporary deferrals of expenditures (which would remain in force unless rejected by Congress). Jurisdiction over both rescissions and deferrals was assigned to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate." By the way, where does Article II of the Constitution say the President has impoundment authority? Also, take note of Article I, Section 7: Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." Nothing about impoundment there either.

Nothing banning it either.