What change will Palin and McCain deliver? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

MattLarson · #46 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Amen. I was just thinking the same thing.
McCain hasn't offered a constructive solution for earmarks... he's announced that he's going to play a tit for tat game with them.

What else can a President do? The President cannot change the House or Senate rules to eliminate earmarks. The only power the President has is the veto.

Which, as you point out, will make a mess of things.

But then again, things are already a mess.

Matt

htperr6565 · #47 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Which, as you point out, will make a mess of things.

But then again, things are already a mess.

Matt

i would say, "make things not function"

i guess that is his idea of reform!!

TheLastBoyScout · #48 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

What else can a President do? The President cannot change the House or Senate rules to eliminate earmarks. The only power the President has is the veto.

Which, as you point out, will make a mess of things.

But then again, things are already a mess.

Matt

Maybe he could propose real reform instead of announce that he's going to initiate the biggest pissing match of all time with congress.

Earmarks contain some unnecessary spending and some essential spending. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A constructive solution to earmarks: just off the top of my head would be to create a separate legislative channel/designation for them. Instead of being tacked on to unrelated legislation, the earmarks could be evaluated on their own merit and packaged together with like expenditures... then put to vote.

Yes, the POTUS has veto power, but announcing to use it procedurally is an abuse of that power IMO. If John McCain would champion and sponsor a bipartisan effort to pass legislative reform and push it publicly it would place much more pressure on congress to get it done than would compiling a weekly "Most Wanted" list for the biggest requesters of earmarks.

It's a simplistic, combative, and destructive way to approach the issue. It's not solving the problem... it would make it worse. Legislators have legitimate earmarks to pass. They're not all frivolous.... What's broken about their passage is the process... not the entirety of their content.

MattLarson · #49 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Maybe he could propose real reform instead of announce that he's going to initiate the biggest pissing match of all time with congress.

Sure - that will work great!

McCain: You all need to stop earmarks.
Congress: That's how we keep getting re-elected. Get bent. We'll keep earmarking, and we'll keep doing it under cover like we do now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Earmarks contain some unnecessary spending and some essential spending. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A constructive solution to earmarks: just off the top of my head would be to create a separate legislative channel/designation for them. Instead of being tacked on to unrelated legislation, the earmarks could be evaluated on their own merit and packaged together with like expenditures... then put to vote.

Just off the top of your head, does the President sent the agenda in Congress? Formulate the rules in the House and Senate?

If not, don't you think this is perhaps an issue for those who do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Yes, the POTUS has veto power, but announcing to use it procedurally is an abuse of that power IMO. If John McCain would champion and sponsor a bipartisan effort to pass legislative reform and push it publicly it would place much more pressure on congress to get it done than would compiling a weekly "Most Wanted" list for the biggest requesters of earmarks.

The Congress has had decades to bring about legislative reform.

And you see what they've done on the issue, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

It's a simplistic, combative, and destructive way to approach the issue. It's not solving the problem... it would make it worse. Legislators have legitimate earmarks to pass. Their not all frivolous.... what's broken about their passage is the process... not the entirety of their content.

And again, who controls the process? The legislature or the executive branch?

Matt

AjaxPress · #50 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

i would say, "make things not function"

i guess that is his idea of reform!!

What's interesting is that nothing functions essentially as things stand now. If McCain would campaign as "nothing will get done because I'll block everything that comes my way, saving the taxpayers billions" he might actually win a few votes.

phungus · #51 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Sure - that will work great!

McCain: You all need to stop earmarks.
Congress: That's how we keep getting re-elected. Get bent. We'll keep earmarking, and we'll keep doing it under cover like we do now.

Just off the top of your head, does the President sent the agenda in Congress? Formulate the rules in the House and Senate?

If not, don't you think this is perhaps an issue for those who do?

The Congress has had decades to bring about legislative reform.

And you see what they've done on the issue, right?

And again, who controls the process? The legislature or the executive branch?

Matt

All good points. One thing to remember though, is that even though the President has no official legislative power, his is still the visible leader of the United States Government. If the President were to really press the issue, and use the media effectively, they could very probably make significant progress when it comes to removing frivolous spending in the form of earmarks.

TheLastBoyScout · #52 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Sure - that will work great!

McCain: You all need to stop earmarks.
Congress: That's how we keep getting re-elected. Get bent. We'll keep earmarking, and we'll keep doing it under cover like we do now.

Just off the top of your head, does the President sent the agenda in Congress? Formulate the rules in the House and Senate?

If not, don't you think this is perhaps an issue for those who do?

The Congress has had decades to bring about legislative reform.

And you see what they've done on the issue, right?

And again, who controls the process? The legislature or the executive branch?

Matt

Again.... I said it all above, but let me reiterate:

- Earmarks are a congressional animal.
- The POTUS does have veto power
- The POTUS can also shape policy by exerting political and public pressure

=> Announcing that constant VETO is the solution is obtuse. Legislators will stand up for their legitimate earmarks and back the president down with public pressure on occasion... or not. The only thing we can be certain of is that there would be more gridlock than there is now. Not pretty.

=> The only solution is if congress is pressured into reforming itself. It's not an easy route, but public pressure, in combination with transparency (which is now there in large measure because of Obama's legislation) can help to solve the problem long-term. The enemy is the stupid process that creates expenditures that are slipped in to unrelated legislation.... not the expenditures themselves.

McCain's proposed solution for earmarks smacks of the same short-sightedness demonstrated on a whole host of issues.

MattLarson · #53 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Again.... I said it all above, but let me reiterate:

- Earmarks are a congressional animal.
- The POTUS does have veto power
- The POTUS can also shape policy by exerting political and public pressure

=> Announcing that constant VETO is the solution is obtuse. Legislators will stand up for their legitimate earmarks and back the president down with public pressure on occasion... or not. The only thing we can be certain of is that there would be more gridlock than there is now. Not pretty.

=> The only solution is if congress is pressured into reforming itself. It's not an easy route, but public pressure, in combination with transparency (which is now there in large measure to Obama's legislation) can help to solve the problem long-term. The enemy is the stupid process that creates expenditures that are slipped in to unrelated legislation.... not the expenditures themselves.

McCain's proposed solution for earmarks smacks of the same short-sightedness demonstrated on a whole host of issues.

And threatening the veto is a part of pressuring congress into reforming.

But ultimately, if McCain or Obama are truly serious about this issue, they should remain in the offices they currently hold - where they can actually effect Congressional policy.

I think you're reading too much into the veto thing, in order to make it into a bigger partisan issue than it actually is.

Matt

phungus · #54 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

I don't really think it's a partisan issue. I think Obama would have co-opted the "I'll veto all legislation with earmarks" promise if he'd thought of it first. Earmarks in general aren't popular, outside of wonky political discussions everyone is against them, and when you get into the wonky discussions they are defended bipartisanly. All I'm saying is that promising to veto every bill with earmarks is not practically possible. It sounds good, it was quoted here by numerous posters, and I just wanted to bring up the fact that it's nothing more then a pipe dream.

Though Any president could use the visibility of their office to combat frivolous earmarks, ultimatly, like you say, Matt it comes down to Congresses willingness to comply. And really it's an uphill battle. When you look at congressional approval ratings congress as a whole gets abismol approval ratings, yet in their individual districts, congressmen generaly do well. Alot of this has to do with the fact they fight to get earmarks for their regions. An example, here in Oregon is funding for Salmon recovery efforts. It's costly, but commercial fishing is big buisness here. The whole Oregon caucus, including the republicans, helped get that spending attached to a completely unrelated spending bill. Now your average Oregonian is all for that, the money comes here to our state, to support an important local industry. But if you're not from Oregon, that probably seems like a waste of money. Things like this happens in every congressional district. So to just carte blaunche announce that you're going to fight earmarks, and your grand solution is to Veto every bill with them... Well at the end of day I don't think that's anything more then political grandstanding.

TheLastBoyScout · #55 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

And threatening the veto is a part of pressuring congress into reforming.

But ultimately, if McCain or Obama are truly serious about this issue, they should remain in the offices they currently hold - where they can actually effect Congressional policy.

I think you're reading too much into the veto thing, in order to make it into a bigger partisan issue than it actually is.

Matt

Well, I think threatening to procedurally veto legislation is either an idle threat or a threat that upon keeping his word, throws the legislative process into turmoil and creates gridlock.

I think this goes a long way into demonstrating that addressing the problem of the Earmark passage process is not something that's easily solvable. Touting Veto power as the solution is devisive and destructive to our country.

In light of our discussion, my conclusion is that McCain, in making "ending earmarks" one of his cornerstone campaign promises, is peddling a lot of bullshit.

MattLarson · #56 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Well, I think threatening to procedurally veto legislation is either an idle threat or a threat that upon keeping his word, throws the legislative process into turmoil and creates gridlock.

A veto is a veto is a veto. There's no "procedural" veto in the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I think this goes a long way into demonstrating that addressing the problem of the Earmark passage process is not something that's easily solvable. Touting Veto power as the solution is devisive and destructive to our country.

Right - it's a difficult problem.

It won't be solved by McCain's veto threat.
It won't be solved by making partisan hay out of that threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

In light of our discussion, my conclusion is that McCain, in making "ending earmarks" one of his cornerstone campaign promises, is peddling a lot of bullshit.

Of course it is - you wear your partisan relativism on your sleeve, as I recall.....

Matt

TheLastBoyScout · #57 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

A veto is a veto is a veto. There's no "procedural" veto in the Constitution.

Right - it's a difficult problem.

It won't be solved by McCain's veto threat.
It won't be solved by making partisan hay out of that threat.

Matt

On the basics, you seem to agree with me, then.

In my view McCain is not an agent of change in regard to earmarks. He's been in the senate for 26 years and the process has not changed.... and he's not likely to change the process in 4 years as a president.

Especially if he intends to live up to his promises of victory in Iraq, revitalization of our economy, and cutting the fat from the budget. All those things require passage of legislation to which blanket veto stands in stark opposition.

historybuff · #58 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

On the basics, you seem to agree with me, then.

In my view McCain is not an agent of change in regard to earmarks. He's been in the senate for 26 years and the process has not changed.... and he's not likely to change the process in 4 years as a president.

Especially if he intends to live up to his promises of victory in Iraq, revitalization of our economy, and cutting the fat from the budget. All those things require passage of legislation to which blanket veto stands in stark opposition.

Actually he has been an agent of change. In fact, he was given a 100% rating by a watchdog group of being against earmarks while Obama was given 10%. The truth will out.

Chocobot · #59 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008

Just watch the Daily Show put McCain and GWB together in their presendential convention speeches.

Its almost word for word.

Angry American · #60 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

Now, you're down to foul language, ha.ha.

Well, just EXACTLY what has Barack Obama given us? What bill has he enacted & fought for & passed? (Besides voting to cut off funding for American troops on the ground in Iraq?)

O.K. I'll take it easy on you--What did he do during his "community organizing job?"

Heck, even when Obama was in the State Legislature, he couldn't even vote Yes or No on a bill, he "stated" Present--(meaning I'm here, like in elementary school), he.he.he.

Obama, your educated HARVARD LAWYER couldn't make a decision, if his life depended on it, he. he. he.

Well, here are a few examples of some pretty decent work for a junior Senator.

Quote:

Obama, Lugar Secure Funding for Implementation of Nonproliferation Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) today announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee accepted their request to provide funding to implement the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative. The Appropriations Committee expressed support for the initiative and provided $48 million for Lugar-Obama, $36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies. This is the culmination of an 18 month effort to authorize and fund the Lugar-Obama initiative.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, the Lugar-Obama initiative enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world. ....

Quote:

OMB Offers an Easy Way to Follow the Money

.... The story began late last year, when two other political opposites, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), sponsored legislation requiring the federal government to set up a searchable online database tracing federal budget spending by Jan. 1, 2008. ....

Quote:

The Gas Menagerie
Obama leads bipartisan effort to raise fuel-economy standards

.... Together with seven other senators -- Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- Obama introduced legislation last week that would raise fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. by 4 percent, or about one mile per gallon, each year. Its sponsors say the bill would reduce America's oil consumption by 1.3 million barrels daily within a decade; that amounts to 16 percent of the current consumption of America's passenger-vehicle fleet of 8 million barrels per day. ....

So this continued myth that Obama hasn't done anything is really getting old, and frankly doesn't hold water. As you can see Obama has been working across the isle to bring us the change he's campaigning for.

I know, it's hard for you to accept, but that's OK, you have Sarah Palin to tuck you in at night, and McCain's "change" you can believe in.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode