Posted on 03/08/2006 10:21:17 AM PST by newgeezer
To be fair, it was the Local News Leader which did the edit of the AP story for its own use. The Washington Post has the entire story as it appears above. But, due to FR's copyright stuff, the WP could not be cited as the linked source.
I posted that quote a number of times while Congress was shoveling money at Katrina's victims. More than a few FReepers insisted I was terrible for doing so.
"Where does President Bush have a vote in the Senate?"
>>>>>>>>>>>............
ever heard the word VETO??
Ever heard of a Line Item Veto?
What do you want to do? stop all in one bill over one line or allow the Executive to cut out things within that bill so that the other business of government is allowed to proceed?
Still doesn't change the fact that the President doesn't have a vote in the Senate.
Or the fact that Tread only wants you to read his crap.
I need about $4000 a year for Gasoline expenditures.. *cough* Energy expenditures. Write check to
John Q. Taxpayer
Anytown USA
The Senate has agreed to put an additional $1 billion this year into a program to help poor people with energy costs, but only after overcoming resistance from warm state senators who said those suffering from summer heat weren't getting their fair share.
I know...this in between BS just pisses me off. Either we're a socialist state or a constitutional republic; you can't have both.
I almost wish we'd go socialist, just so the bleeding hearts can whine when everyone quits their jobs. Why work when there's 'free' money.
between this, welfare, and free health care, it's pretty much a free ride being poor in this country... in the mean time the rest of us have to work our butts off to get the things the "poor" get for free... If you want to see real poor people, try a third world country.. we have no real poor here.
$1 billion isn't nearly enough. Heat, cold - doesn't matter. I say every American is entitled to $1 million of free money. Come to think of it, let's not forget inflation: make it $3 million.
Hey.... I resemble that remark :)
Years ago I used to do painting work for a guy that had a contract with HUD. We did alot of work in low income, rent assistance, energy assistance residences. I can't tell you how many did not bother to use the storm windows which in most cases just involved sliding down the aluminum storm window (didn't even have to go on a ladder), and leaving windows open in brutal WI winters. If they don't have to pay for it, they don't give a crap. Another problem, the money goes directly to the residents instead of going as a credit to the utility company...guess who doesn't get paid? So the taxpayer winds up paying for their own heat, paying taxes to pay for someone elses, and higher costs for utilities because the utility companies get stiffed by the "energy assisted", triple screw IMHO
Poor people here ALWAYS have cable.
If he were to veto the entire bill, they'd have to repass it without the objectionable item. If he does it enough times, they'll get the message and not include things like that in the first place. Reagan knew how to do that, and there's no reason why Bush shouldn't. He isn't even protesting against any of this.
The line-item veto would be very dangerous, because it would give him the power to reward and punish individual Congressmen who don't vote the way he wants. And it will do nothing whatsoever to reduce pork. Just look at how it's worked at the state level. The states that have it are just as pork-packed as those that don't. It's completely useless. At best, it's just a feel-good measure to make it look like something's being done about the problem. It's no substitute for a backbone.
Maybe,just maybe, they also MOVED to a warmer climate?
I like the idea of the line item veto.
Take this ports thing for example. The Congresscritters today use big bills to slip other things into it. They are connecting the ports thing with a defense bill.
It isn't right to do things that way. I just use that as an example. There have been many other bills that had horrible additions to them, but the main part of the bill included something this President ran on so he signed it. A lot of it came when the Senate was still split relatively evenly between the relatively conservative and the liberal GOP and dems, but things are shifting again I think.
Well I don't. It gives the President too much power over Congressmen, as I indicated, while providing too little protection against actual abuses.
I might be able to see the argument if the President had been in the habit of pointing to portions of bills that he'd been "forced" to sign and criticizing Congress for them and saying that he would have vetoed them if he had the option of doing so. But he refuses to even take that much of a stand. How's that supposed to earn anyone's confidence that he has the right motivation for wanting this power?
If Congress passes bills with unacceptable riders, he should really get in the habit of vetoing them until they get the message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.