Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: House approves line-item veto for president [View all]McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)This way, if the House load bills that have to pass---like military funding---with pork(which they have to do, this being an election year) Obama will be the one who is forced to either veto it (alienating voters) or sign it----at which point it becomes his pork and the Congressman who wrote it was just doing his job for his constituents while the GOP House as a whole can claim that it is trying to cut government spending but Obama will not let them.
For instance, military says a certain bomber is unneeded. House member for that district---say, in a purple state like Ohio---wants it built. Obama can either veto the bomber--and lose votes in a purple state. Or he lets the bill through, at which point the House member wins easy re-election.
This strategy depends upon the GOP having lots of SuperPac money to ran wall to wall ads that say something along the lines of "You lost your job at Boeing because Obama cut spending for the ___bomber." In case he does not veto the unnecessary spending, the Super Pacs will run "Obama authorized money for a bomber that the Pentagon said it does not need" in other districts hit hard by the economy.
Solution to this problem: Senate should kill the line item veto now---and then bring it up against next year after Obama is re-elected.