Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
19. House wants to have its pork and eat it, too. Here is how the scam will work.
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:55 PM
Feb 2012

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Some thing smells. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #1
That's the smell of corporate supremacist authoritarianism. Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #23
Why now, why this? for the republicons to cooperate. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #27
Why not? It's not a question of Republicans vs Democrats it's a question Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #43
That's what I am afraid of. But I think you got it. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #50
Because they are counting on a GOP Presidency. nanabugg Feb 2012 #47
No, I think post 43 has it right. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #51
Things have been smelling for awhile now. nt woo me with science Feb 2012 #55
I asked my forer rep many years ago rurallib Feb 2012 #2
Good for you. Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #7
he was defeated in 2006 by a damned good democrat rurallib Feb 2012 #42
Oh, that was beautiful! Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #48
he actually attacked me one day after I asked him a question rurallib Feb 2012 #52
Why now, after all this time? arcane1 Feb 2012 #3
actually, I believe that they found this unconstitutional, back in the 90s zbdent Feb 2012 #17
Yes, this held unconstitutional. amandabeech Feb 2012 #33
Clinton v. City of New York amandabeech Feb 2012 #34
I thought this was so when I heard it. mantis49 Feb 2012 #57
My understanding is Inouye isn't supportive Lone_Star_Dem Feb 2012 #4
I don't like this. Never have. Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #5
Hopefully kenfrequed Feb 2012 #6
I don't know if I can support this line-item veto...... Swede Atlanta Feb 2012 #8
I can support a line item veto - as long as we get there via a Constitutional amendment. Doing it 24601 Feb 2012 #13
The next question should be - what is their alterior motive? In this I do not trust them. I hope the jwirr Feb 2012 #9
And then the King said no............. Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #10
The next Bush/Cheney duo will love a line item veto. It's better than signing statements. nt jody Feb 2012 #11
They're called Rubio/McDonnell or possibly McDonnell/Rubio and they will be elected... onehandle Feb 2012 #38
He should veto it. Scuba Feb 2012 #12
Or parts of it. Orrex Feb 2012 #26
Can he line-item it to limit it to just Democratic Presidents? Scuba Feb 2012 #29
LOL boppers Feb 2012 #54
more powers for the puppet emperor, umm, president, no matter what party they be from stockholmer Feb 2012 #14
Don';t like one bit. emilyg Feb 2012 #15
they did this to clinton too tech_smythe Feb 2012 #16
I said pretty much the same thing above zbdent Feb 2012 #18
if you look at the timestamps and the posting numbers, tech_smyth's reply was before yours nilram Feb 2012 #41
said in agreement ... not as a smackdown ... zbdent Feb 2012 #45
ok, thanks, I get it now. nilram Feb 2012 #46
House wants to have its pork and eat it, too. Here is how the scam will work. McCamy Taylor Feb 2012 #19
Exactly-it makes the pres the bad guy.n/t. Scruffy1 Feb 2012 #40
spending bills only Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #20
There does seem to be a tendency for Congress to reject its powers caraher Feb 2012 #21
The Legislative Branch abdicating their power. Old and In the Way Feb 2012 #22
i thought SCOTUS had already ruled that a no-no?? n/t NMDemDist2 Feb 2012 #24
SCOTUS can reverse itself as it did with slavery. nt jody Feb 2012 #25
Yes. Clinton v. City of New York. 6-3. nt amandabeech Feb 2012 #36
I hope the senate doesnt vote for it. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #28
So How Is This Line Item Veto Any Different DallasNE Feb 2012 #30
In this version they are trying to get around the SC objections. former9thward Feb 2012 #37
Amend the Constitution if you want a line-item veto. This is not Constitutional. NYC Liberal Feb 2012 #31
It's a bad law usrname Feb 2012 #32
Isn't this unconstitutional nineteen50 Feb 2012 #35
Line item veto WITHOUT a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional happyslug Feb 2012 #39
Yeah, What would Grimace Al Eato and Roberts have to say about the unitary executive when right now lonestarnot Feb 2012 #53
They should just amend the House rules...stop adding unrelated crap to bills as an amendment.... Evasporque Feb 2012 #44
"The House bill, offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis..." RUMMYisFROSTED Feb 2012 #49
Timing is everything Highway61 Feb 2012 #56
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»House approves line-item ...»Reply #19