Should the President Veto?
By Smith2028
@Smith2028 (797)
United States
March 23, 2007 7:01pm CST
Ok, now that the Pelosi led Congress has agreed to HR 1591 which funds 24 BILLION in pork projects along with 90+ billion for our troops. Should the President veto the bill and require the congress to pass a law funding the troops only.
My take: YES! Pelosi and gang promised to curb pork projects. They also complain that we send our troops over there without the equipment necessary. However, they are not willing to give them what is necessary unless we also increase the minimum wage, give spinach growers $25 million, peanut storage in Georgia 95 million and on and on. The President should veto. He should require them to pass the funding for the troops as a complete separate legislation as he asked for in the beginning. That will show the true colors of the Democrats.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
24 Mar 07
Yes he should veto it and stand firm.
Where do the Democrats get off by saying that Bush is spending too much and then try to push through a bunch of unnecessary pork?
To top it all off, they are showing that they don't support the troops by trying this.
Bush has already said he would veto that and he needs to.
Holding our soldiers hostage over pork projects should show everyone what the Democrats all really all about.
They are more interested in their pet projects than in our national security.
We did have the line item veto for a short time and the first time it was used the Supreme Court overturned it.
It was signed into law by Clinton on April 9 1996, and promptly challenged by a group of Senators led by Robert Byrd, a Democrat.
It was overturned and ruled unconstitutional on Feb. 12, 1998.
I think it is very ironic that a Democratic President finally signs something that every president before him has wanted, and it is opposed and overturned by members of his own party.
This demonstrates the lengths that the Democrats will go to in order to protect their precious pork.
If the line item veto was valid, it would be a simple matter to line through the pork and then sign the bills.
Budgets would be much easier to balance, and a lot more real work would be accomplished.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
24 Mar 07
this is where a line item veto would be usefull. that is probably one of the few things i ever agread with clinton on. This puts Bush in a tough spot, if he veto's, the Dems and everyone on the left in this country is going to be screaming saying "see? he voted against funding the troups!!!" but if he doesnt, then he give congress his blessing to continue wasting tax dollars on foolish things.
1 person likes this
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
24 Mar 07
Good point. I wish the Line Item Veto existed (maybe someone will wise up to it after this)
2 people like this
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
25 Mar 07
Surely dem supporters realise it's a waste though? No one likes to see money wasted. If he veto's does that include the whole $124bill? Can he not object to the individual projects?
And why are the projects so important to Pelosi and co.?
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
25 Mar 07
Yes, he will have to veto the entire bill. Funding for the troops and all. Because the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional, the President does not have the authority to strip the bill of the pork and sign it.
@MrCoolantSpray (1005)
• United States
25 Mar 07
There are probably reasons why the line item veto was overturned. I see a potential for abuse. Consider: A president has many pork barrel projects tacked on to a bill that also funds inner city public schools. Veto the schools, pass the pork.
I like Robert Byrd, as he funded a large part of my post-high school education. However, I still think the line-item veto is a good thing. He shouldn't have contested it.
That bill puts Bush in a tight spot. Whatever he does, he's screwed. Either way, I hope the Democrats get their comeuppance.
1 person likes this
