Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Line-item veto too risky

My column for the West Bend Daily News, in which I break ranks with many of my conservative brethren, is online.  It’s called, “Line-item veto too risky.”  Here’s how it starts:

“Politics makes strange bedfellows,” Charles Dudley Warner so wisely quipped in 1850. Of course, he also said, “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” While both statements are equally accurate, only the former quote applies to the politicians referenced in this column.

   Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain have joined Congressman Paul Ryan to introduce legislation to give the president a de facto lineitem veto power. While well intentioned, this is too much power for an already powerful executive and is fraught with possibilities for abuse.

Read the rest!

 

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0736 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Good points Owen. I am in favor of the line item veto - but as you point out we have seen it used very poorly in Wisconsin (Thompson and Doyle).

    I think we need a better method of implementation that this end around that is going on now. There’s a reason it is so difficult to amend the constitution. It forces any change like this to be carefully thought out and fully “vetted”

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2009 at 0947 hrs


  2. A problem with opposing the line item veto is that over the course of the next 10-15 years we will need to reduce and eliminate large portions of the government, not just what would be traditionally defined as “pork”.  While a legislative option may be far more desirable, the failure of the legislature to act may create a situation far more draconian than a line item veto.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2009 at 1026 hrs


  3. It’s tough to eliminate porkulus by opposing safeguards such as the line item veto. Is this evidence Conswervatives are evolving as they strike down another core principle established by St. Ronald?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2009 at 1144 hrs


  4. But,  Owen, I thought you were in favor of the “unitary executive” which is central to the leader principle of Bush Doctrine. 

    What is more in keeping with the Bush-Obama doctrine of a unitary executive than a line item veto?

    Could it be you do not love and trust Our Dear Leader, Obama (may his blessing rain down upon you) as much as you loved and trusted Our Great Leader, Bush (may his benevolence magnify you)?

    If the line item veto President George W. Bush gave himself was OK, then why is a line item veto passed by Congress too dangerous to give to Barack H. Obama?

    Is it really the power of the line item veto you oppose or just the current leader will not wield the power the way you want?

    Posted by John Washburn on March 17, 2009 at 1539 hrs


  5. Wow.  Way to put words in Owen’s mouth.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2009 at 1605 hrs


  6. Very good article, though coming from an ideologue such as yourself I almost fell out of my chair when I read you suggest political compromises weren’t the root of all evil.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2009 at 2023 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.