Bush says SenKerry has come down to work with him on Line Item Veto..

[KoKo]

He's already slammed Dems for passing his Patriot act and not speaking out (all according to him) about the NSA Surveillance. He said if the Democrats don't like those policies they should have spoken out about it. :eyes: It's Diss the Dems day for Bush. I hope our Dems will come out and refute every lie he's put out there in that rambling drivel.

It's the first time I've seen him go out on the attack against Dems.

And, hopefully blm and Kerry Goddess will get on that statement Bush made.

Kerry needs to make a statement about this..

[LynneSin]

1. I Want line-item veto

It'll suck when Bush is in the WHite House but I'm hoping it'll be someone else, hopefully a democrat in 2008

This is long-overdue and might finally clean up some of the pork in these massive bills. If John Kerry is involved, he'll find a way to ensure it's written well!

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Not intended to "clean up pork."

Really, Kerry is backing it to make Chimpy eat his words. Fact is, this "conservative" Preznit hasn't vetoed anything, and chances are he wouldn't have the balls to line-item veto anything either.

[KoKo]

7. He would "line item veto out" any amendments that Dems meagerly

got into a bill putting in safeguards for the people. Dems haven't been able to do much but they have tried to drag down some of the most aggregious Bills. Giving Bush that power would take away the last drag that Dems have available.

We know Bush and the Repugs are NOT trustworthy. Giving Bush another tool
would only seal our fate under the Imperial P-Residency and hurt us down the road with other P-Residencies if John McCain wins. And, given the disastrous situation with the Touch Screen Paperless Voting Machines there's no guarentee that McCain won't be our next...

[karynnj]

10. If the set of things line item vetoed were as you describe

the Republicans wouldn't vote for it - those are things added with great effort because the embarrasment factor of voting against them was too high.

[blm]

15. Then it would be up to Bush to have to explain why he vetoed safeguards

and the congress would have to explain why they didn't add the safeguards back in when the bill returns to them.

[atreides1]

4. Bush out first

A line-item veto vote should be put away until Bush is out of office, and then it should be worded very carefully to apply to only pork spending, so that it cannot be used to attack Social Security or
Medicaid.

And even with Kerry involved, Bush will just do another signing statement like he did with the anti-torture bill!!!

[blm]

3. Kerry always wanted line-item veto to strip pork, but also wants the

legislation to provide that president doesn't get the last word, that it goes BACK to congress, which makes the final decision - he believes that's the only constitutional way to make it happen.

Alot of donations to the GOP are kickbacks from these pork-filled projects. I hope the legislation passes the way Kerry wants to see it pass.

Kerry has been a balanced-budget Democrat since he took office in 1985 - this is not an unexpected move. It IS an unexpected move from Bush, since he has been LOATHE to veto anything from the GOP congress who loves pork to line their campaign coffers.

[KoKo]

6. But, if it goes back to a Bush Congress then it's rubber stamped.

Is this the proper time for Kerry to be pushing this? :shrug: After all this P-Resident is a renegade with a lock step Senate and House.

I just can't imagine trying to work with these people when it's clear that they aren't willing to work with Dems and that what Kerry hopes to achieve will fail because the Repugs will give Bush exactly what he wants. It doesn't make sense to me...

[blm]

8. He's not going to be against something he's been for the last 21yr because

Bush still has a few years left in office. No real legislator would base his convictions regarding process on who the president is.

And it puts Bush on the spot to strike porkbarrel projects or be seen as being FOR porkbarrel spending.

[Rose Siding]

5. Why not just abolish Congress?

If cost efficiency is the goal, why not go whole hog? They've already abdicated oversight responsibility, why not the power of the purse?

And what more deserving president could there be than bush? Imagine- he'd hold sway over 59 votes in the Senate. (could this kind of veto even BE overridden?)

Of course, there is that "taxation without representation" detail.....hmmmm ....:think: John Yoo! please pick up the courtesy phone- we're gonna need a white paper!

[blm]

9. Kerry wants it written so it has to return to congress for final say over

whatever was vetoed by prez. That's the only way line-item could work constitutionally.

[KoKo]

11. Bush managed to gut the McCain Torture Bill by using a "signing statement"

He has the power to do what he wants and change things. He cut funding for the "No Child Left Behind" bill...as Senator Kennedy has pointed out. He just doesn't fund what he doesn't like. So, he already has the "line item veto by mandating it for himself. He just wants what he's doing illegally to be legal. It's a pattern...don't you see that?

I hope Kerry won't be hoodwinked into trusting Bush. If anything our Dems still keep assuming they are working with someone who has "honor." Surely they should have waked up to the fact that he DOESN'T, by now!!! :grr:

[blm]

13. It's not a matter of "trusting" Bush - it's a matter of getting your own

input on an issue - and to keep it constitutional. Bush cannot get it through HIS way, as it doesn't pass the constitution test in court.

Why on EARTH would anybody be against ANY Dem input to make a bill more constitutionally sound, especially if it's to control PORK-BARREL spending that has been lining the campaign coffers of many of the GOPs in congress?

[KoKo]

17. Leaving it up to a Dangerously Incompetent Pres..to decide what is pork

and what is not...might be the question in this case though.

One person's pork is another persons need. Would you trust that Idiot to decide whether the Alaska Bridge go NoWhere was more important than funding School Children's Lunches. :shrug:

[blm]

18. That's why Kerry's plan takes the vetos BACK to congess for final say.

And school lunches doesn't fall into the pork category. I doubt that Bush would dare even try to make that argument while leaving in obvious pork like Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

You seem to have no appreciation for the seriousness of the spot that line-item veto puts on Bush AND congress.

[KoKo]

23. I see it as a dangerous road to go down with "unintended consequences"

possible. Congress is controlled by Republicans who have no sense of hypocracy...and who are much craftier with their use of power than our Dems have proven trying to thwart it.

This could backfire on us, badly. That's my fear. And, I've never been in favor of giving ANY president that power. Bush has usurped enough power that we may never get even pieces of it back. And, I wouldn't want any Democrats to have that power, either.

[Mass]

20. No, but I would be happy to point that he did not veto it when he could.

and put the blame squarely on him and not allow him to hide behind the fact that he cannot veto a single line in the budget.

[karynnj]

12. Why is Kerry the one who should speak out to defend Reid and Feingold

Reid should speak out to correct Bush's lie (or strawman, if you prefer) that he wanted the Patriot Act killed. He wanted the Patriot Act that came out of conference replaced by the one that came out of the Senate. Reid needs to move the argument from the Patriot Act to the set of amendments in question. Reid needs to define himself.

Similarly, Feingold needs to sate as he, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy and likely countless others have said - he never was for getting rid of the program, just doing it legally. This is a very easy 1 sentence redefinition - that needs to be done.

Seeing that all other occasions, people scream that Kerry is not a leader of the party, why is it his job to defend everyone. He has very often defended people, but why is this his job - why not Hillary or Bill, the past President and presumed future nominee? One reason, I hope he does, is he has excelled in the last year in correcting things without losing the dignity and integrity he is known for. He never was an attack dog though and he shouldn't be cast as one.

[blm]

14. What on earth are you talking about? Why is Kerry your target again today?

Why are you so insistent to trash the senator who has done more to expose government corruption than any lawmaker in office today?

If you don't understand his LONGTIME stance on line-item veto that goes back over two decades, then you don't know Kerry well enough to attack him every other day.

Did you choose to attack all the Dem senators who voted for John Roberts and demand their statements?

The Roberts effect on the Supreme Court will have a longer-lasting effect on this nation than legislation that gets passed now, since the legislation can always be altered by the next Dem president who chooses to use the bully pulpit to make the changes they prefer - like with the Patriot Act or line-item veto, should it pass.

[tishaLA]

16. I hought the Supreme Court already ruled

against line item vetoes during the Clinton administration and said they are unconstitutional. Is that wrong?

[blm]

19. You're right, but Kerry's version fixes the unconstitutional aspect.

His version calls for the presidential veto to still go back to the congress so congress gets the last word on what stays and goes in the budget.

It really puts both the president and congress on the spot on pork-barrel spending. There will be greater scrutiny of the decisions made.

[Mass]

21. Should we blame Feingold as well - According to this letter he wrote to

Bush, he supports the LIV. The letter argues that Bush already has some of these powers.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6743

We are writing today to ask for your assistance in helping stop the abuse of the appropriations process. You were precisely on point in the State of the Union when you outlined the necessity for earmark reform. Earmarks have gotten out of control and the federal budget has too many special interest projects. You can help fix the problem.
...
Line-item earmarks found in report language do not carry the force of law and can be essentially vetoed by your Administration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The executive branch already has too much power.

In fact, it should be done away with and more power given to the legislative branch. We could call it a parliamentary system of government. And, while they're at it, they could scrap the senate, and we could call it a democracy - if we could get rid of the lobbyists and their bosses who actually run the government.

[maddezmom]

24. locking

This is flamebait and citing members names in the OP is calling out.