SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (713870)11/17/2005 7:46:53 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Could be a valid argument for line item veto too.

It might be, but would Bush use it? He isn't prone to veto, in fact I believe he never has.

I voted for Bush. But he has done a poor job with spending. Perhaps anyone else elected would have done as poorly but even if true this is still a low spot on how I would evaluate Bush.

It sometimes seems like the Democrats talk about increasing spending and then increase spending, while the Republicans talk about small government and then increase spending. No one really seems interested in cutting spending, and even seriously restraining its growth is something that few politicians strongly support (at least not with a detailed specific plan for the major restrictions in growth).

Tim



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (713870)11/18/2005 9:10:11 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"Could be a valid argument for line item veto too."

The Supreme Court ruled that law to be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL delegation of Congress' budget authority.

So, it will require an amendment to the US Constitution to grant a President line item veto power.

So, if we are going to do that... why not just pass a Balanced Budget amendment, and be *done with* the problem of government over-spending?

(Or, pass BOTH amendments at the same time?)