DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - How dirty is it to attatch ANWR drilling to defence spedning in a bill?

**PolPitasc** · 12-21-2005, 10:58 PM

Interesting point. I agree a 'line-item veto' might 'reduce' the problem, but to me, the clear source of the problem is the US Constitution itself that splits responsibility for government finance between Congress and the Executive.

The result is that neither is held to be ultimately responsible for the nation's finances - thus spending is on a never-ending upwards spiral and neither the President nor Congress is rationally held accountable for it and thus neither have any incentive to address increases in wasteful spending - indeed, because of the US system, both the President and Congress have strong vested interests in increasing spending.

A line-item veto clearly and unequivically hands the power of the purse over to the Executive - that's why SCOTUS struck it down. Constitutionally, that was the correct decision in law. The flaw therefore lies in the US Constitution.

Very good summary of the Constitutional dilemma.
If anything, I agree with the opening post that slipping these 'riders' in (like ANWR) into a bill after it has been approved in both Houses is a really, really undemocratic (and highly corrupt) way to create legislation (though not necessary any more corrupt than the manner and process utilised in other western nations - perhaps only more blatantly corrupt).

But again, this problem is also a result of the mix-mash of divided (and therefore avoided) responsibility between the 'branches' of the US government.

When people praise the principle of the "separation of powers" being integral to democracy, that is true - and specifically refers to the separation of the judicial and the executive.

Separating the executive from the legislature poses no theoretical advantage worthy of praise. Indeed, it produces perversities such as 'riders' added to bills after they have been passed by Congress. I think that you're missing an important point. The President has the ultimate veto power over a budget. Clinton and Reagan both exercised that veto, IIRC. In Clinton's case, it was lauded as preventing those bad Republicans from starving the poor and children when they submitted a balanced budget complete with real cuts. In Reagan's case, it was an irresponsible act designed to shut down the country and starver the poor and children when he vetoed a bloated budget submitted by a Democratic Congress. It seems that the liberal spin always prevailed.

In accordance with our Constitution, only the House of Representatives has the authority to actually spend Federal money. At any point in time, a fiscally responsible HR can defund ANY program. Unfortunately, a fiscally-responsible HR is as rare as hen's teeth nowadays.

12-21-2005, 10:58 PM	#11
PolPitasc Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 480 Senior Member	Interesting point. I agree a 'line-item veto' might 'reduce' the problem, but to me, the clear source of the problem is the US Constitution itself that splits responsibility for government finance between Congress and the Executive. The result is that neither is held to be ultimately responsible for the nation's finances - thus spending is on a never-ending upwards spiral and neither the President nor Congress is rationally held accountable for it and thus neither have any incentive to address increases in wasteful spending - indeed, because of the US system, both the President and Congress have strong vested interests in increasing spending. A line-item veto clearly and unequivically hands the power of the purse over to the Executive - that's why SCOTUS struck it down. Constitutionally, that was the correct decision in law. The flaw therefore lies in the US Constitution. Very good summary of the Constitutional dilemma. If anything, I agree with the opening post that slipping these 'riders' in (like ANWR) into a bill after it has been approved in both Houses is a really, really undemocratic (and highly corrupt) way to create legislation (though not necessary any more corrupt than the manner and process utilised in other western nations - perhaps only more blatantly corrupt). But again, this problem is also a result of the mix-mash of divided (and therefore avoided) responsibility between the 'branches' of the US government. When people praise the principle of the "separation of powers" being integral to democracy, that is true - and specifically refers to the separation of the judicial and the executive. Separating the executive from the legislature poses no theoretical advantage worthy of praise. Indeed, it produces perversities such as 'riders' added to bills after they have been passed by Congress. I think that you're missing an important point. The President has the ultimate veto power over a budget. Clinton and Reagan both exercised that veto, IIRC. In Clinton's case, it was lauded as preventing those bad Republicans from starving the poor and children when they submitted a balanced budget complete with real cuts. In Reagan's case, it was an irresponsible act designed to shut down the country and starver the poor and children when he vetoed a bloated budget submitted by a Democratic Congress. It seems that the liberal spin always prevailed. In accordance with our Constitution, only the House of Representatives has the authority to actually spend Federal money. At any point in time, a fiscally responsible HR can defund ANY program. Unfortunately, a fiscally-responsible HR is as rare as hen's teeth nowadays.
	Quote