Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama seeking more control over budget

By Michael D. Shear
President Obama wants more control over the country's budget, and plans to ask Congress for it this week.

Obama will be requesting an alternative to the line-item veto known as rescission, which would give him -- and future presidents -- the power to submit a package of changes to spending bills that Congress would be required to vote on, up or down.

The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010 would be the latest attempt by a president for more spending control since the line item veto was struck down as unconstitutional in 1998. Since then, presidents have urged Congress to give them what most governors have.

But members of Congress in both parties are reticent to give away what they see as one of their most prized responsibilities -- control over the spending. That makes the Obama proposal a tough climb on Capitol Hill.

The president's budget director, Peter Orszag, will explain the proposal in a conference call Monday morning, and his deputy will head up to Capitol Hill tomorrow.

By by Michael D. Shear  |  May 24, 2010; 10:29 AM ET
Categories:  44 Native , 44 The Obama Presidency , Barack Obama , On the Issues , Political Geography 101 , The Budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Steele: Paul's 'philosophy got in the way of reality'; Sestak: White House offered me a job; Gibbs defends White House spill response
Next: Democrats cautious on Obama's spending-cut proposal

Comments

It's nice that the president wants more control over the budget, but do we really trust him to control spending anymore than congress? He's already increased the budgets of every agency, after coming in on a platform of controlling spending. I guess that is to be expected as every politician says they will control spending and are financially responsible. To really make a difference we all need to get active. Get involved at www.wecantpaythattab.org

Posted by: wecantpaythattab | May 26, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

If you truly want to know what is going on; Then you will have to accept these things as the TRUTH. Once you understand the following things; All things will be understood. So I tell you Obama is the Anti-Christ, Satan on Earth, Lawless One, or what ever else you want to call this Demonic Figure. His words describe him, He is a False Hope, If you listen to him you will love him. He carries a Bow without an Arrow. He will conquer all through his speech, his false hoods will capture all who sit and listen to him.

Posted by: makom | May 25, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

This proposal is slightly different from the usual line item veto. The usual argument against the line item veto is that key concessions made to get a vote on the bill could be removed via line item veto. Those congressmen would have no say over those changes, and any piece of leglislation could be sabotaged. Bill Clinton asked for this in the name of budgetary sanity, and was denied.

The recission however gives congress the ability to recind the suggested presidential changes in their up or down vote on the package. This gives them some measure of control over bills they pass.

The problem with this is likely to be a constitutional overstep. Here you have the President actively involved in crafting leglislation, instead of merely being the up or down veto vote on any given bill. It is a significant change to the scope of powers awarded to the president. As much as I would like to see this passed to reduce pork, I feel that this could be used to put MORE pork into any given bill.

The reason being the president could then, on any piece of leglislation, do what congressmen do. In exchange for his vote (not vetoing it), you need to accept his bribe riders to the bill. So Obama could threaten to veto the annual military appropriations bill if congress did not add a rider to put a lot of money into Chicago outreach programs.

Because this is likely unconstitutional, and could be abused, I am against it. The president already has too much power.

If the president however puts together

Posted by: Wiggan | May 25, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

What a joke! The campaigner in chief has both houses of Congress! He wants more control? The trolls in Congress have passed all he's asked for!

Posted by: devildogdon | May 25, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

What Constitution?

Posted by: jcdooley | May 25, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

The road to Dictatorship is long and hard and all the great dictators had fiscal control; you first have to convince the masses that you have their best interests in mind and then take away their ability to spend on things you disagree with.

Posted by: docwatson223 | May 25, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

His party controls the congress and the executive branch of government and he has veto power...yet he wants more control. He can send his minions to secret, closed meetings to fabricate a stimulus bill, bailout bill, healthcare bill etc...but he needs more power to control the budget. Congress can't be that stupid that they would give up some of the power granted to them by the constitution. It would be nice to see a budget from Congress this year (usually done by April), but I believe this administration is afraid to put forth the budget because of all the new spending and new taxes that will be included by the democrats.

Posted by: redhorde21 | May 24, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

A great idea. Prior to 1974 Presidents could control some wasteful spending by simply not spending money Congress had authorized. In 1974 Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then any money authorized to be spent on a program has to be spent. This plan has a chance to slow the growth of spending.

The preferred solution to slow the growth of borrowing and spending is a Constitutional Amendment to put a limit on federal debt.

Posted by: fbonnell | May 24, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS A CONTROL FREAK. LET'S HOPE THAT THE CONGRESS DOES THEIR JOB AND DONESN'T GRANT THIS POWER TO THIS PRESIDENT.

Posted by: barrysal | May 24, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Giving Mr. Soreoto more control over the budget would be disastrous.

And, for the liberal poster who favors the Huffington Post's way of using forums...just like DailyKos, they I.P ban everyone who disagrees with them.

Posted by: Smarg | May 24, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

If we cant get comments where we can comment on each users comments it is useless. Build a better website. The neo-fascist right here is dumber than a box of rocks and someone needs to set them straight. Like the idiot who claims blue states got more money than red states in stimulus. These guys think taxes went up, unemployment started January 2009, and the stock market is down. Half of them think Hawaii isn;t a state. Can we fix this crappy commenting style where we have to post into a running comment?!

See huffingtonpost.com forums for how to use the Internet.

Posted by: ravenshroud | May 24, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Nothing more should be given to this President or his radical liberal elite supporters.
This must stop and stop now!
Individual freedoms are being lost daily and "We the people" are being completely ignored by an out of control federal government.
We need to recall what Abraham Lincoln said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
President Obama is trying to obtain absolute power to the detriment of all US citizens.
We must not let this happen!

Posted by: rteske | May 24, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE

63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

63% of Americans don't even know there was a health care bill. You mean 63% of people polled?

63% of people polled would be against anything you told them about. This is why we choose reps instead of governing ourselves.

Posted by: ravenshroud | May 24, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

This is sensible as it appears that the President is being blamed for pork barrel spending by a Congress that he has little control over. If he is to be blamed then at least he should be able to submit a budget for an up or down vote. Why is it that members of Congress are empowered to add pork to spending bills that then go before a President who is unable to veto that added pork away using a line item veto? It appears that Congress has all the authority to spend, with no responsibility for the deficit and the President ends up with the responsibility/blame but lacks the authority and control. The budget system in this country stinks and needs a complete overhaul if we are to get the massive debt, built up as a result of the Bush profligacy and failure to veto excessive pork barrel spending by Congress, under control.

Posted by: Ex-Mil | May 24, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

This is sensible as it appears that the President is being blamed for pork barrel spending by a Congress that he has little control over. If he is to be blamed then at least he should be able to submit a budget for an up or down vote. Why is it that members of Congress are empowered to add pork to spending bills that then go before a President who is unable to veto that added pork away using a line item veto? It appears that Congress has all the authority to spend, with no responsibility for the deficit and the President ends up with the responsibility/blame but lacks the authority and control. The budget system in this country stinks and needs a complete overhaul if we are to get the massive debt, built up as a result of the Bush profligacy and failure to veto excessive pork barrel spending by Congress, under control.

Posted by: Ex-Mil | May 24, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Control over more than he already controls - don't think so. He already has enough with his veto. Unfortunately he has shown he can't even use it, nor can democrats stay within their voted pay as you go law, and now this???? Maybe this is to try and cover up the upcoming news that the Govt. take over running union pensions and making up the shortfall and paying for their healthcare etc. above and beyond what everyone else has. I guess Stern's number 1 amount of visitations to the WH have paid off. They now want govt. to make up their shortfall while they announce they will spend over 100 million to get democrats re-elected.

Posted by: justmyvoice | May 24, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

This is sensible as it appears that the President is being blamed for pork barrel spending by a Congress that he has little control over. If he is to be blamed then at least he should be able to submit a budget for an up or down vote. Why is it that members of Congress are empowered to add pork to spending bills that then go before a President who is unable to veto that pork away? Congress has all the authority to spend with no responsibility and the President ends up with the responsibility but lacks the authority and control. The budget system in this country stinks!

Posted by: Ex-Mil | May 24, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"Like Obama the spendaholic would do anything he just wants to act like he cares because everything he has done has failed and the midterms are coming up.

Posted by: samuellenn | May 24, 2010 4:43 PM"

Last time I herd, were getting more back from the money we so called gave to the Banks 3/4 of it now? You need to go see what we got back when Bush spent all his 4 Trillion on War Privateering...

Posted by: Longbowan | May 24, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

WE the American Taxpayer needs to get Contral not Not Obama, Getting Control is impeaching or vote him out of office....

Posted by: akeegan2 | May 24, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Like Obama the spendaholic would do anything he just wants to act like he cares because everything he has done has failed and the midterms are coming up.

Posted by: samuellenn | May 24, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan passed a line item veto amendment and the Supreme Court struck it down.

Posted by: mike85 | May 24, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

in regards to jward52's comments concerning how the 'founding Fathers' would have acted... those 'founding fathers' you speak about were the "RICHEST folks" in the US at the time!!!! The US Constitution is a business venture. It is supposed to guarantee, "Life, Liberty and the Protection of Property". That is what the US constitution is. nothing else. Therefore, that 'founding Fathers' would be in favor of unrestrained capitalism, which is why they fought the darn war for Independence in the first place!!!!

Secondly, this item isn't stopping the Congress from putting anythings in a bill, it's just so the Pres can say... "hey, wait a minute. revote on this particular item only, yea or nay on those specific items. Therefore no one is stealing any powers from congress at all.

Posted by: mikey1871 | May 24, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | May 24, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Control over what budget?
We aren't having one this year (election year you know).

So, he wants a pistol without bullets.
Maybe he can learn to twirl it, if the telepromter instructions are large enough.

Posted by: BluePelican | May 24, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

If you truly want to know what is going on; Then you will have to accept these things as the TRUTH. Once you understand the following things; All things will be understood. So I tell you Obama is the Anti-Christ, Devil on Earth, or what ever else you want to call this Demonic Figure. His words describe him, He is a False Hope, If you listen to him you will love him. He carries a Bow without an Arrow. He will conquer all through his speech, his false hoods will capture all who sit and listen to him.

Posted by: makom | May 24, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Control over what budget?
We aren't having one this year (election year you know).

So, he wants a pistol without bullets.
Maybe he can learn to twirl it, if the telepromter instructions are large enouge.

Posted by: BluePelican | May 24, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

If this man every got that power lookout red states,You will be the ones that get the cuts,Just as stimuls mone was doled out.
most of it went to blue states.
Only his socialist thugs and the votes he bought with stimulus matter to him. The working tax paying American doesn't matter to him only social justice is important to the marxist.
Why doesn't he try social equality in stead.

Posted by: jburo | May 24, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

We do need to get the budget under control, but do we really trust the Obama administration to do anything that makes any sense? This guy is the biggest spender in the history of our county! We need basic and fundamental changes in the the Congress. If they refuse to reform, then we have to continue voting them out of office until they do reform. Obama is paving the road to Greece. Does the congress have the discipline to take another route? I hate to say, but it is unlikely that they will change.

Posted by: Prof-Dr-G | May 24, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats already control the House and Senate. Why does Obama need any more control? Is it so he can spend more than Pelosi is willing to give him? Or, is it a chance to punish his rivals more?

Posted by: mchristinaw | May 24, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm not so sure I trust Obama with this one. If he gets it, he could start by trimming all the prok-barrel crap bill by bill; then he could refuse to finance anymore worthless wars. After that, as commander-in-chief, he could bring our troops out and home for the duration of his Presidency.

Posted by: bwshook1 | May 24, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

It's neither Bush's fault, nor Obama's fault, nor any other politicians' fault. It is our fault.

When was the last time you voted for a politician who said he/she would raise your taxes and cut your favorite government program because it was necessary to balance the federal budget?

When did you ever hear of a Senator from an agricultural state promise to cut or eliminate farm subsidies and be re-elected? How about a representative from a district that has one of the military bases periodically scheduled to be closed?

No need to answer! People only vote for politicians who promise to raise somebody else taxes and cut somebody else favorite government programs in order to balance the budget!

Posted by: risejugger | May 24, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants control of everything...and responsibility for nothing. 2012

Posted by: JCM-51 | May 24, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else remember when Nixon was too big to fall?
He didn't even destroy the Gulf,or refuse to protect a State from Foreign Invasion, or fire a Private CEO disenfranchising the rights of shareholders.

As we see who is quitting, I am reminded of Elliott Richardson, who was a Decorated soldier (Bronze Star & 2 Purple Hearts), he held many top governmental posts. As Attorney General of the United States, he resigned in what became known as the 'Saturday Night Massacre' rather than carry out President Richard Nixon's orders to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who had been investigating White House wrongdoings.

Posted by: dottydo | May 24, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else remember when Nixon was too big to fall?
He didn't even destroy the Gulf,or refuse to protect a State from Foreign Invasion, or fire a Private CEO disenfranchising the rights of shareholders.

As we see who is quitting, I am reminded of Elliott Richardson, who was a Decorated soldier (Bronze Star & 2 Purple Hearts), he held many top governmental posts. As Attorney General of the United States, he resigned in what became known as the 'Saturday Night Massacre' rather than carry out President Richard Nixon's orders to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who had been investigating White House wrongdoings.

Posted by: dottydo | May 24, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Allow the Conneticut SSN fraud any more power?

Nope.

Posted by: dottydo | May 24, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

re "Defense" spending:

That is REALLY true! We spend more than EVERY OTHER NATION on the face of the earth COMBINED! If we cut our defense spending in half, it would still be more than all the other major nations together! Do we think we're a reincarnation ofthe Roman Empire - that we have to control the rest of the world? Why is it necessary to have bases all over the world - even where we aren't wanted? If we cut the trillion dollar Pentagon budget in half, we could actually do some good - maybe have a budget surplus in a couple of years, invest in new technologies that would create jobs, take care of the health care of our citizens, etc. But, of course, if anyone in Congress would suggest cutting the Defense budget, they'd be told they were soft on defense, and would be out of a job in short order. The fact is that we worship power - we are addicted to it. It not only is killing us economically, but causes others to dislike us (who likes a bully always telling them what to do or ELSE?), and makes us more unsafe. Yet we go on piling more mony into it anyway. It is the one thing we can't give up. AA says that "insanity is doing the same thing, and expecting diffferent results." What we'e doing is crazy, but we are addicted to it.

Posted by: garoth | May 24, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

NO! NO! NO! Members of Congress, are you listening? NO! NO! NO! This jerk is a closet dictator! We don't live in Zimbabwe! I don't care if Obama is closer in behavior to Robert Mugabe than Thomas Jefferson! NO! NO! NO!

Posted by: georges2 | May 24, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Allow the Conneticut SSN fraud any more power?

Nope.

Posted by: dottydo | May 24, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants control of the whole darned world and we sit here on our hands and let him take it! Duh!!!

Posted by: prossers7 | May 24, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

In case this isn't some sort of joke I just want to say "HELL NO".

Posted by: peterg73 | May 24, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Looking like another empty political promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | May 24, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

jfv123, good point, and well-taken. One thing we always have to keep in mind is how any power granted may be taken in the future. One may use it to reduce spending - eliminating some pork that ended up in a bill to get a vote (like Nevada in the health bill). On the other hand, it could be used as an Administrative weapon to reward or bludgeon individual congressmen into submission. That creates a problem, whether used by the curent administration in that way or not, it opens up that possibility. The one saving grace is that it is NOT a line-item veto - Congress gets the chance to vote on the rescission. As the article mentions, this is a power granted to most governors, so there is a history here. It would involve the Administration more directly in the legislative process than it is now, but would also provide a balance to the lobbies and their influence.

There used to be a provision that items in a bill had to at least relate substantially to the main bill - what happened to that one? When that went out the window, it turned bills into trash cans full of pork that didn't even remain nominally related to the issues at hand.

Posted by: garoth | May 24, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Nowhere to be found in all the talk of government spending; Defense. Now over $700 billion per year. No problem?
Lift up the rock to find more slush funds, overspending and fraud, than even in Medicare.

Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | May 24, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

And the cost to the nation of this? Priceless...

ENDLESS GULF OIL SPILL: PURPOSEFUL 'END OF DAYS' POWER PLAY?

See Vic Livingston's "Facebook" page ("Notes" tab) for the commentary that a rogue government "fusion center" surveillance and censorship regime apparently would not allow to be posted to WaPo's political blogs this morning.

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 24, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

We know that the POTUS inherited this mess, so we should pass a resolution saying it is Bush's fault so that we can let our President concentrate on solving the problems. Seriously, the POTUS sends a $4 Trillion budget and ask for spending cuts, but needs more power to do so. Why not send a smaller budget? His abilities are far better than mine, so I just need a better explaination so I can understand the logic? Don't get me wrong, I do understand why this is Bush's fault.

Posted by: Bosoxfan | May 24, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

More presidential power isn't necessary - why not clean up Congress and stop re-electing these pork-laden multi-termers?

Posted by: millertek | May 24, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Don't know the answer to that but be aware that whatever they pass now is "hurry-hurry" with November looming . . ."

Don't worry about earmarks. The Democrats refuse to even pass a budget for next year because "it's too hard during an election year".

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | May 24, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

$BAILOUT! BAILOUT! BAILOUT! -- What is wrong with President OBAMA & CONGRESS? -- The Most Suffering & Hurting of U.S. CITIZENS are being IGNORED!? - This is outrageous, immoral, and anti-American to the MAX!!! -- The DISABLED & ELDERLY Living in "POVERTY" need $HELP NOW!!! -- Why does CONGRESS & OBAMA Only Help the already ones doing fine?! -- Our Founding Fathers would be SO ASHAMED at these 'Turn-Coat' - UN-CARING Politicians!!! --- OUR Most Suffering U.S. CITIZENS should come First -- PERIOD!!! -- IS THIS AMERICA??!!

Posted by: jward52 | May 24, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

But I suppose cutting wasted money on worthless wars to nowhere will still be taboo for Congress too!

Posted by: Wildthing1 | May 24, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

asmith1, apparently you can't read either. I never said that the President is part of the Legislature. I said that he is part of the legislative process - every bill has to go through his desk, and has to be signed or vetoed by him. Why don't you learn to read?

What is being suggested does not overstep the Constitution. If you knew anything at all about the legislative process, you would know that the Administration is involved anyway, from start to finish, so that few bills have to be vetoed (unless one of the parties or the President is trying to make a political statement). What is being proposed does not compare with Chavez or any other authoritarian government - that's about as idiotic a statement as I have heard. Congress retains all of is powers, from beginning to end. But, of course, this gives you something to scream about - forget the facts. If you think Obama is the devil, then any cause will do.

Posted by: garoth | May 24, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I like the general concept of another restriction on spending. However, there is nothing intrinsic to his bill that limits its use to reducing spending. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.

What this bill does clearly do is give a President more power over individual members of Contress and how they vote. That power could be used to increase spending as easily as to reduce spending.

For example, if a Congressman refuses to vote for a Nundred Billion program the President wants, the President could threaten to veto a ten million project in the Congressman's district. That tradeoff would increase net spending. So, whether the proposal would reduce spending or increase spending depends on the goals of the President using this power. The recent Healthcare debate is a good example of how this bill could be used to increase spending. THere we see what a Presidemt willing to do anything ot get a big spending bill is willing to do to buy votes. A President intent on spending Trillions could use this power to buy votes for a program that will speed up our trip to national bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, there are no procedural fixes to the spending problem. The spending problem is caused by the people we elect, not the voting procedures. The only way to fix the problem is electing people committed to reducing spending.

Posted by: jfv123 | May 24, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Months late and trillions of dollars short. This administration has spent more in the first year then all other administrations in the history of these United States COMBINED. Now that America as a whole realizes the gravest mistake in electing this man he is trying to gain support.
Too late Obama. You and your greatest ever of Pelosi and Reid have brought this nation to the lowest level. People fell for your dialog before but no more. You can't fool us again.
The tide is turning. The primaries are showing reality. Enjoy the next 2 years in office because you and your demagogy are done. Thanks for the highest unemployment since 1940. It's time to take responsibility for YOUR actions and not continually blame Bush or anyone else but yourself. You even finger point in the oil leak crisis. What did you or any predecessor do before this happened to ensure safety, NOTHING.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 24, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

It appears that many of the bloggers here cannot read, or lack the intellegence to understand what is being proposed. What the president is asking for is not something that takes away the spending authority of Congress The President is part of the legislative process - he must sign off on any spending. At present, the only power he has is to either accept or reject legislation. This gives another option - that of suggesting changes.
=========

The Executive branch is NOT part of the Legislative branch - that is why the President can veto and recommend but can not play a role in the legislation process.

It doesn't take a moron to figure out Obama is trying to circumvent the Constitution (again) in an attempt overstep his authority.

Obama

Posted by: asmith1
---------------------------------
Uhh, I believe the original poster said legislative PROCESS, not BRANCH.
This observation goes back to the original poster saying some of you idiots can't read.
Just couldn't wait to start spewing your Anti-Obama hate speach, eh moron?

Posted by: cjbass55 | May 24, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Obama seeks new [] power"

And this NEWS how?

Posted by: NoWeCant | May 24, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

During the campaign didn't he promise that he would veto any bill that came to him with pork? If he is serious, all he has to do is follow through on his promise and tell Congress what he wants removed in their next attempt. That will get their attention. The process being proposed is totally unnecessary, the president already has the ability to discuss and work with Congress on bills before they are passed and then veto and return a bill to Congress if they don't play ball.

Posted by: termiteavenger | May 24, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I think that adding power to the presidency sets up a slippery-slope; while I agree that our legislative branch is too entrenched in special-interest-pork-laden spending, I am always concerned when one branch of our government wants additional power over another. Even though I'm definitely a liberal leaning progressive, I think our President has this one wrong!

Posted by: free_thinker | May 24, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010" That is hilarious. Who comes up with these?

Posted by: marty3dj | May 24, 2010
=====================================

Meanwhile the Democrats are quietly pushing a NEW $200 BILLION SPENDING bill through Congress........which will add to this years deficit if passed.

POST.........why aren't you reporting this?
================

Don't know the answer to that but be aware that whatever they pass now is "hurry-hurry" with November looming . . .

This may be their last chance to smash things thru'.

It's like a 4 year old locked inside the house by himself. Do what you can while you can.

Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

All GOP Presidents have asked for this, but now that it's a Dem we can't possibly do it. Line item(whatever you want to call it) is needed, can rein-in Congressional spending. Especially Defense programs the Pentagon doesn't want, but Congress always wastes money on by keeping the project alive. Why is the expansion of Executive power okay during a GOP presidency> Ask Dick.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 24, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010" That is hilarious. Who comes up with these?

Posted by: marty3dj | May 24, 2010
=====================================

Meanwhile the Democrats are quietly pushing a NEW $200 BILLION SPENDING bill through Congress........which will add to this years deficit if passed.

POST.........why aren't you reporting this?

Cover baby..........cover.....sad

Posted by: allenridge | May 24, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

So, Republicans whine about earmarks but the minute the President comes up with a way to deal with them you very same people start whining, bi!ching and moaning all over again. The reality is, is no matter what this President does,good or bad, some of you will find something to complain about. Then when someone calls you all on it you will start whining about racism and that Obama supporters are pulling the race card.

Posted by: catmomtx | May 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Imagine the same presidential power during an adversarial congress. The president could force congress to stop work and vote on hundreds or thousands of individual earmarks.

BTW, there is nothing in spending bills saying "this is an earmark". Does the President get to decide which items are, and are not, earmarks?

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | May 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

when they pass it, I expect it to be before the Supreme Court asap...
maybe then obama will learn how to treat people with dignity...
obama is reminding me of chavez more and more...

Posted by: DwightCollins | May 24, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's see now, all of the Constitutional lawyers (except for the ones who are really Constitutional lawyers), budget complainers and superior spellers are moaning about the President having the ability to cut out of a specific bill waste, earmarks and other budgetery overspending that may not even be relevant to that bill. Or the President's ability to cut out of a bill when a particular Senator or Representative re-inserts spending that has previously not been approved from a previous bill.
Great, I love it.

Posted by: ArbeeIII | May 24, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lgaide
Spending that $800 Billion is the only thing that kept us out of a (Capital D) Depression.

====================

That's a great talking point but can anybody give any evidence of that?

How do you know that?

As far as Health care we are taxing Americans for 10 years to pay for 6 years of benefits - after that?

None of you is willing and able to look at such facts - you only want to kiss Obama's feet and give him a free pass.

He's the one that promised the stimulus would keep unemployment from going to 8% -

Here we are at 10 . . . Bush's fault again?


Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

What probably needs to happen is for the states to force the issue and call a Constitutional Convention, and see if just maybe then Congress gets the idea. Live within your means!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | May 24, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

For once Comrade Obozo is proposing something I MAYBE can agree with. What he really needs to do is to have Congress rescind the 1974 law that forbids the President from impounding funds, or find a test case and try to get the law declared unconstitutional is it imposes on separation of powers.

We also need the line item veto, as well as a balanced budget amendment.

I don't know if Comrade Obozo is just doing a tap dance to try and court swing voters come November. It wouldn't surprise me. Still, this is something we desparately need, no matter if the president is a left wing pinko like Comrade Obozo, or a good conservative President.

Posted by: A1965bigdog | May 24, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lgaide

I agree that Clinton did not achieve the budget surplusses alone. But it was his administration that lead the way. You always seem to blame the problems on the President but never give them credit for the successes.

==================

I've never had a problem criticizing Bush or any president for screwing up . . . I did not support the Iraq invasion for example.

What I don't understand is in a year and a half, I never see anyone on the left say anything negative or critical.

Do any of have your own mind about what's happening? Or do you think it's all cool?

Was it cool to spend $800 billion dollars in the middle of a recession? In the first month?

Was is cool to pass an Huuuuuuge entitlement package when we can't sustain the ones we have?

And now he wants to act like the "earmark" police - oh brother!
*******************************************************
There are a number of things that President Obama has done that I don't agree with. But, on the whole, I think he is doing a good job. And he has accomplished a lot.

Spending that $800 Billion is the only thing that kept us out of a (Capital D) Depression. Yeah, I would rather we not have to spend that much but it is better than the alternative.

And if by "entitlement package" you mean health care reform, yes. I agree with it on the whole. Again, there are certain parts I don't like, but the goal of providing health coverage to all Americans is a worthy goal. And the reform will help curb the astronomical inceases foisted on the public by the health care industry.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The only veto power this empty-suited, failed POTUS should be interested in is mine.

And it's for darn sure he knows what I'm going to veto in 2012.

Posted by: jayjay9 | May 24, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

King Obonehead wants what??? His Hind@zz's Dummycrats already has control of both houses of Congress.

Better check you Constitutional "checks and balances" or was King Obonehead asleep during that section of Con Law I?

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | May 24, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The line item veto is unconstitutional in that it rewrites the powers and duties of the legislative and executive branches with the required amendment to the Constitution. If anyone on the left wants Obama to have this, imagine it in the hands of a George W. Bush or Nixon. On the right, give it to Obama or Clinton and see if you want a president to be able to sidestep Congress.

Bad idea to fix a dysfunctional democracy.

Posted by: kcbob | May 24, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lgaide

I agree that Clinton did not achieve the budget surplusses alone. But it was his administration that lead the way. You always seem to blame the problems on the President but never give them credit for the successes.

==================

I've never had a problem criticizing Bush or any president for screwing up . . . I did not support the Iraq invasion for example.

What I don't understand is in a year and a half, I never see anyone on the left say anything negative or critical.

Do any of have your own mind about what's happening? Or do you think it's all cool?

Was it cool to spend $800 billion dollars in the middle of a recession? In the first month?

Was is cool to pass an Huuuuuuge entitlement package when we can't sustain the ones we have?

And now he wants to act like the "earmark" police - oh brother!
*******************************************************
There are a number of things that President Obama has done that I don't agree with. But, on the whole, I think he is doing a good job. And he has accomplished a lot.

Spending that $800 Billion is the only thing that kept us out of a (Capital D) Depression. Yeah, I would rather we not have to spend that much but it is better than the alternative.

And if by "entitlement package" you mean health care reform, yes. I agree with it on the whole. Again, there are certain parts I don't like, but the goal of providing health coverage to all Americans is a worthy goal. And the reform will help curb the astronomical inceases foisted on the public by the health care industry.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, but this flies right in the face of "checks and balances". There's no need for this kind of power trade. This is EXACTLY what politics is supposed to be used for.

Posted by: ripper368 | May 24, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Well why not?

Since he is a god I am sure he will use this power wisely, what can go wrong?

We might as well give him the power he seeks, a couple of years from now he will be running for President for Life, this just gives him the head start he needs.

Posted by: kl305 | May 24, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not all that sure that the bills being sent to the president are strictly Constitutional either. When they bundle a whole bunch of measures together, then the President has little alternative; either he signs it approving all, or vetoes it, condemning all.

Here's a better idea. Mr Obama vetoes every peice of legislation that crosses his desk that contains any unrelated items. Of course he probably doesn't have the cojones to do that.

Posted by: mhoust | May 24, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

No reason to demonize Obama over this (though there may be plenty else to do it over). Just about EVERY President since Washington (he eschewed it) has tried to expand Presidential power.
Anyone remember Reagan carping about not having the line-item veto 25 years ago?

Posted by: nadie1 | May 24, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have been asking for something like this for years. But now that it's proposed by Obama, they want absolutely nothing to do with it. God bless their hypocritical hearts.

Posted by: jeffwacker | May 24, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

It's a little late isn't it, now he is physically responceable

Posted by: samuellenn | May 24, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Nothing new here. Just about EVERY President since Washington (he eschewed it) has tried to expand Presidential power.
Anyone remember Reagan carping on not having the line-item veto 25 years ago?

Posted by: nadie1 | May 24, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Nothing new here. Just about EVERY President since Washington (he eschewed it) has tried to expand Presidential power.
Anyone remember Reagan carping on not having the line-item veto 25 years ago?

Posted by: nadie1 | May 24, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow. It's clear Rahmn Emmanuel has taken control. They will stop at nothing.

Posted by: Frishoo | May 24, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional. I guess our law professor in the White house missed hat court case."

And, this would also be unconstitutional. The president does NOT have to power to require a vote in Congress. The Executive Branch can NOT tell the Legislature what to vote on or what kind of vote to have.

Obama hubris.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | May 24, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Odinga has no shame! After spending the wealth of this Nation for this and the next three generations, he now seeks line item authority? Kind of like the arsonist who seeks better flame control on the fire..

Posted by: sladenyv1 | May 24, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

>>>

You'd have to be a koolaid drinking sheep to believe this garbage. Obama held a fiscal responsibility conference after the stimulus bill passed last year...and then continued a record spending spree. He signed Paygo a few months ago and then spent over $400B under the guise of "emergency" funding so he wouldn't have to follow Paygo rules. Obama will say anything to show how responsible he is but never follows up with actions. Drink some more koolaid. And yes, I felt the same about Bush.

Posted by: Tostitos | May 24, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Presidents always want more power over the budget, and it's a good thing that they don't have it. The Founders designated that all spending measures originate in the House for a reason, because members are all beholden to a local constituency, which ensures that federal money flows back to states and voters in a roughly proportional manner.

This doesn't always work out perfectly, but it is a much better system than concentrating more power in the hands of one man. Even if you like and trust Obama, would you have wanted to give Bush this extra power? What about the next president who comes after Obama?

Posted by: blert | May 24, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Reading the posts from the right wingers just goes to show how they've become the party of retards.

Posted by: donkeypunch | May 24, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lgaide

I agree that Clinton did not achieve the budget surplusses alone. But it was his administration that lead the way. You always seem to blame the problems on the President but never give them credit for the successes.

==================

I've never had a problem criticizing Bush or any president for screwing up . . . I did not support the Iraq invasion for example.

What I don't understand is in a year and a half, I never see anyone on the left say anything negative or critical.

Do any of have your own mind about what's happening? Or do you think it's all cool?

Was it cool to spend $800 billion dollars in the middle of a recession? In the first month?

Was is cool to pass an Huuuuuuge entitlement package when we can't sustain the ones we have?

And now he wants to act like the "earmark" police - oh brother!


Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Clinton did not achieve the budget surplusses alone. But it was his administration that lead the way. You always seem to blame the problems on the President but never give them credit for the successes.

It was Bush that took spending and debt to levels that will take decades to recover from. The VAST majority of economists agree that the stimulus package is one of the main reasons that this country is not in a depression. It was the Bush administration's unrestrained spending and absence of any financial regulation and oversight that put this country on the brink of disaster. And you are blaming President Obama because he hasn't fixed Bush's eight years of mismanagement and disastrous incompetence in a measly two years.

Heck. I'll be surprised if this country can recover from Bush in 20 years.

Posted by: lgaide

----------------------------

Are you kidding me?!?

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. Don't you remember the federal government shutting down during the Clinton administration because Clinton and Congress couldn't come to an agreement? Congress wanted to spend less money; Clinton wanted to spend more. It was only a couple years later after Gingrich had largely prevailed in budget-cutting efforts that Clinton suddenly got religion, so to speak, and became a champion of balanced budgets. Clinton didn't arrive at that balanced budget willingly, but once he was there and realized how popular it was, he was more than happy to take credit.

Of course, giving all credit to Republicans skews the story, too. The reality is that most of the budget surplus during the last Clinton years was thanks to a hyperactive tech boom that bloated the federal tax coffers. The tech bubble was a sham, and so even with the various budget cuts made, those budget surpluses lasted only until the bubble popped.

Posted by: blert | May 24, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

as I recall, Reagan asked for a line item veto. Obama proposes something far less radical and the wingnuts scream abuse of power.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 24, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Yes "ignoranceisbliss", you have shown us just how blissful you are with your three identical postings (non of which have anything to do with the discussion at hand)!!! YOU, my friend, are the national JOKE!! HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | May 24, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

It appears that many of the bloggers here cannot read, or lack the intellegence to understand what is being proposed. What the president is asking for is not something that takes away the spending authority of Congress The President is part of the legislative process - he must sign off on any spending. At present, the only power he has is to either accept or reject legislation. This gives another option - that of suggesting changes.
=========

The Executive branch is NOT part of the Legislative branch - that is why the President can veto and recommend but can not play a role in the legislation process.

It doesn't take a moron to figure out Obama is trying to circumvent the Constitution (again) in an attempt overstep his authority.

This may work for Chavez, but we're not in Venezuela - we're in the US where CONGRESS controls the budget and the President signs off on it, rejects it or makes recommendation.

It doesn't matter how cumbersome the process may be, that is the way our founding fathers set it up so we don't become like Venezuela

Obama

Posted by: asmith1 | May 24, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional. I guess our law professor in the White house missed hat court case.

Congress would the line item veto. It means they get lots of political cover. Congress is spineless.

Posted by: mike83631 | May 24, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional. I guess our law professor in the White house missed hat court case.

Congress would the line item veto. It means they get lots of political cover. Congress is spineless.

Posted by: mike83631 | May 24, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes "ignoranceisbliss", you have shown us just how blissful you are with your three identical postings (non of which have anything to do with the discussion at hand)!!! YOU, my friend, are the national JOKE!! HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | May 24, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes "ignoranceisbliss", you have shown us just how blissful you are with your three identical postings (non of which have anything to do with the discussion at hand)!!! YOU, my friend, are the national JOKE!! HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | May 24, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Just this once, can we refer to this bill as an EDICT instead of an ACT? That way it will be acronymically accurate: The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Edict, or RUSE. the ruse is that Obama cares in the slightest about reducing spending, other than in the Defense budget.

Posted by: reheiler | May 24, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Just this once, can we refer to this bill as an EDICT instead of an ACT? That way it will be acronymically accurate: The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Edict, or RUSE.

Posted by: reheiler | May 24, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

First this ...

next he'll suspend elections to stay in power indefinitely.

No way!

Posted by: conservativegir
-----------------------

BUT When Bush wanted line-item veto power you were all for it!

PS. I am for line-item veto... Congress is OUT OF CONTROL

Watch Michael Moore's "Capitalism" he shines the light on the darkness of BOTH parties... only a fool thinks there's a difference.

Posted by: kkrimmer | May 24, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

As I was posting my note, I had another thought about this - a possible problem: With this option available to the President, it would increase the likelihood that Congress would leave the politically hard choices to the President. This already is a standard fature in the House, where votes are regularly bought and sold with pork (maybe a side of beans, too, for all the "gas" we hear from there!). They depend on the Senate to make their hard decisions for them, and cut out the pork in Reconiliation. This would make it easier politically for the Senate to do likewise, figuring that now the President will cutout all the pork, and take the heat for them. Still, maybe it's a good thing - the Senate takes the heat to make bills out of the House palatable; the President does the same for the Senate. After it's done, maybe less pork, and better bills. I guess I'm till for it.

Posted by: garoth | May 24, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lgaide

For all the claims that the Democrats are the big spending party, history documents that it has been Republican administrations that have busted the budget time after time. While Pres Clinton gave the country budget surpluses, it was Reagan and Bush II that plunged the country into record deficits. Bush, alone, DOUBLED the National Debt in 8 years.

==================

Let's restate the record . . . Clinton did not bring a surplus alone, he did it because he was smart enough to go along with a very republican congress who created the contract with America and balanced the budget.

There's plenty of blame to spread around to both parties for out of control spending.

It's just that this administration has taken spending and debt to levels that we may never recover from.

Do any of you libs care? You really think our president is Santa Claus and Pelosi and friends are the elves.

Posted by: reddog62
*************************************************
I agree that Clinton did not achieve the budget surplusses alone. But it was his administration that lead the way. You always seem to blame the problems on the President but never give them credit for the successes.

It was Bush that took spending and debt to levels that will take decades to recover from. The VAST majority of economists agree that the stimulus package is one of the main reasons that this country is not in a depression. It was the Bush administration's unrestrained spending and absence of any financial regulation and oversight that put this country on the brink of disaster. And you are blaming President Obama because he hasn't fixed Bush's eight years of mismanagement and disastrous incompetence in a measly two years.

Heck. I'll be surprised if this country can recover from Bush in 20 years.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The GOP mission is; OBSTRUCT, SLOW, DELAY, DERAIL, STOP, DIVIDE, STAGNATE, STATUS QUO.

Considering that Millions of Americans are Unemployed and Tens of Thousands along the Gulf Coast have recently lost their livelihoods as a result of the Oil Spill, I'd say they are pretty good at their jobs.

Right now Senator Shelby (R-ALA) is holding up Hundreds of Government Management Positions so that he can win concessions for even more government funded contracts (Socialist Welfare) in Alabama.

He is Blocking Critical Jobs responsible for Preventing Terrorism in spite of *Hundreds of Billions* of Taxpayer money towards the Alabama based Littoral ship building program.

Mitch McConnell loudly proclaimed for weeks that we needed a bipartisan commission to make recommendations for Debt reduction then he voted against it.

In 2008 McConnell called for a $700 Billion fund to be paid into by banks but now that he has been bought off by Wall Street he’s blocking practically all regulation of them.

End the Bush Era $2 Trillion in Tax Cuts for the Rich; and Tax Imported Gasoline .50~$1/Gallon to pay for JOBS Programs.

Posted by: liveride | May 24, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

First this ...

next he'll suspend elections to stay in power indefinitely.

No way!

Posted by: conservativegirl | May 24, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

BEWARE any more powers for Obama!! That includes BOTH PARTIES!

Posted by: wheeljc | May 24, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Window dressing for the upcoming election.

Style over substance . . .

Unless this president and congress can turn unemployment around in 3 months the anger will continue.

All this play-acting by "big-ears" doesn't change anything for the ones trying to find work.

Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

More power?
Yes we can. He has a "mandate."

Posted by: Indi1 | May 24, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The president can veto the budget and send a memo along with the returned bill stating his objections.

At some point, Congress will come up with something he feels he can sign.

Meanwhile, Congress gets the heat from constituents for not being able to pass a budget the president will approve.

It's not neurosurgery, folks.

Posted by: rmlwj1 | May 24, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

It appears that many of the bloggers here cannot read, or lack the intellegence to understand what is being proposed. What the president is asking for is not something that takes away the spending authority of Congress, and is very much within hwat would be normally regarded as his constitutional authority. The President is part of the legislative process - he must sign off on any spending. At present, the only power he has is to either accept or reject legislation. This gives another option - that of suggesting changes. Congress still has the authority to either accept or reject his proposals. This seems to be in keeping with Obama's nature - he likes to come to concord, rather than drawing lines. For those who actually want to see things improve in politics, and things actually get accomplished by Washington, this is a "win/win" situation. Congress' powers are not lessened, and the president has another option besides the veto. Of course, for those who want to continue to have "in-your'face" politics, and don't care about out-of-control deficits and pork-barrel politics, this is anethema.

Posted by: garoth | May 24, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

We heard this promise during the Campaign! Didn't believe it then and don't believe it now!!!!!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | May 24, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Just cede total power to him . The rats in congress don't want the responsibility and the repugnicans can't handle it .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | May 24, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

That's all this pres is about,control,control,and more control.God help us.

Posted by: votingrevolution | May 24, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Right!!! I trust a bunch of Chicago mobsters now in the White House to use a veto under the guise of fiscal responsibility like I trust Hugo Chavez.

This is a non-starter, DOA.

Posted by: hz9604 | May 24, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

More veto power on a per item is needed, but with the track record that Obama has, he will veto every item except the most needed, "entitlements." The name itself is a joke. This is America. We are "entitled" to what we work for and earn. Noone is "entitled" to a free ride. Pres. Obama needs to start representing ALL americans, not just the ones he thinks will give him a vote come Novemeber for passing legislation that gives them something for nothing...and nothing is defined as the working Americans money in exchange for the dead beats vote.

It has been amazing to watch a President and Congress, the representatives of the people, continue to push and pass legislation that goes totally against the majority of the American people that they are suppose to represent.

Posted by: Indi1 | May 24, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

More veto power on a per item is needed, but with the track record that Obama has, he will veto every item except the most needed, "entitlements." The name itself is a joke. This is America. We are "entitled" to what we work for and earn. Noone is "entitled" to a free ride. Pres. Obama needs to start representing ALL americans, not just the ones he thinks will give him a vote come Novemeber for passing legislation that gives them something for nothing...and nothing is defined as the working Americans money in exchange for the dead beats vote.

It has been amazing to watch a President and Congress, the representatives of the people, continue to push and pass legislation that goes totally against the majority of the American people that they are suppose to represent.

Posted by: Indi1 | May 24, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

The biggest spender in our nation`s history now wants to pick and choose what HE will approve under the pretense of fiscal concern.The man is shameless and beneath contempt!
****************************************************
No. Bush is out of office so he can no longer "pick and choose". You are right that he is shameless and beneath contempt.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Good luck with this one. Neither party will be on your side, Mr. President. There is too much at steak. (This is not a mis-spelling!) Or maybe I can't make this bad substitution work for pork. And the lobbyists at downtown eateries don't eat pork anyway. Make the best of a sloppy joke.

Posted by: Geezer4 | May 24, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The biggest spender in our nation`s history now wants to pick and choose what HE will approve under the pretense of fiscal concern.The man is shameless and beneath contempt!
************************************************
No. Bush is out of power so he can no longer "pick and choose". But you are right that he is shameless and beneath contempt.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Why are you people so oblivious to the fact that our deficit is the result of two people: Reagan and Bush II. Not Obama. Bush II and his GOP congress spent $5 trillion dollars while he was President. A lot of our deficit now is paying the interest on that money. Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor, just ask Dick "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" Cheney

Posted by: maurban | May 24, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Owebama seeks power- period. In fact, he's all about power. Ironically, he condemns profits, but craves power; can't get enough power. Are there any wise people out there who understand that absolute power corrupts?

Posted by: nosam32 | May 24, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

But members of Congress in both parties are reticent to give away what they see as one of their most prized responsibilities -- control over the spending.
______________
Right, because Congress has done such a top-notch job thus far. Hopefully, they learned their lesson after giving the President war powers authority, which used to reside only with the Congress.

Posted by: WildBill1 | May 24, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"But members of Congress in both parties are reticent to give away what they see as one of their most prized responsibilities..."

No, members of Congress, whichever party they might represent, are very, VERY seldom "reticent." What they are is "reluctant."

"Reticent" means to be silent or uncommunicative. Although Websters has only recently added "reluctant" as a tertiary meaning, anyone who prizes the English language should reject that definition because it was added solely to accommodate the common misuse of the word.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | May 24, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

copy editor/michael shear:
reticent does not mean the same thing as reluctant. at all. i think this is the second instance this month i have seen this in the post.

to be reticent means to speak little or rarely. to describe congress as reticent is almost nonsensical.

Posted by: sparse | May 24, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

uh-oh --- Republicans won't like this. They depend on their earmarks and fearmongering to win re-elections.
That's all they've got.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 24, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The biggest spender in our nation`s history now wants to pick and choose what HE will approve under the pretense of fiscal concern.The man is shameless and beneath contempt!

Posted by: bowspray | May 24, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, lads and lasses. This one cannot be done through legislation. In order to implement this little plan (which, by the way, I think would be a VERY dangerous extension of executive power) would require a constitutional amendment, and that amendment would need not only to grant the president this new power over Congress, but would also need to curtail Congress's right to make whatever rules govern its own procedures.

This will never pass, nor should it. The fact is, one man's pork is another man's public works. Public works are usually GOOD things, but because so many necessary public works are geographically and jurisdictionally narrow in scope which makes consensus for their passage difficult-to-impossible, and the smaller jurisdictions could not afford them in a million years, these earmarks do serve not just a useful, but an ESSENTIAL purpose.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | May 24, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many responders on this board "CAN'T READ".

Obama is not asking for a line item veto. A veto means Congress gets no vote. He's asking to send a package of rescissions back to Congress for a vote.

Most of the people crying wolf on this are the same ones that accuse Obama of over-spending and allowing the budget to get out of control.

Which one is it you pinheads?

Posted by: HunterGatherer | May 24, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

My,my,my! All these serious and learned comments about a political ploy that is dead in the water. Take the opposing political party's major principle and turn it against them without incurring any political risk for yourself.

Posted by: Impudicus | May 24, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

My,my,my! All these serious and learned comments about a political ploy that is dead in the water. Take the opposing political party's major principle and turn it against them without incurring any political risk for yourself.

Posted by: Impudicus | May 24, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

My,my,my! All these serious and learned comments about a political ploy that is dead in the water. Take the opposing political party's major principle and turn it against them without incurring any political risk for yourself.

Posted by: Impudicus | May 24, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Yeah right, then only the presidents earmarks would be allowed to stay in. You think Congress would give up what little power they have? lol, no way Obama, now you really are thinking like a messiah.

Posted by: _Cowabunga_ | May 24, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

It's not at all attractive to stick to one's guns rather than admit an obvious mistake. It's the country that's at stake here not a handful of egos.

Posted by: thebink | May 24, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

If you truly want to know what is going on; Then you will have to accept these things as the TRUTH. Once you understand the following things; All things will be understood. So I tell you Obama is the Anti-Christ, Devil on Earth, or what ever else you want to call this Demonic Figure. His words describe him, He is a False Hope, If you listen to him you will love him. He carries a Bow without an Arrow. He will conquer all through his speech, his false hoods will capture all who sit and listen to him.

Posted by: makom | May 24, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The original line-item veto was declared unconstitutional, so why do they think this verson would survive judicial review?

The power over the budget is Congress' most important power over the executive branch. They should be more careful with it.
*******************************************************
Try reading the column before commenting. The 2nd paragraph answers your question.

"Obama will be requesting an alternative to the line-item veto known as rescission, which would give him -- and future presidents -- the power to submit a package of changes to spending bills that Congress would be required to vote on, up or down."

Congress WOULD vote on the spending cuts.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

52% of Americans voted for Obama. He should not be able to sidestep our elected officials who represent all voters, and should not have the power to unilaterally set social policy through what he line item vetoes and what he doesn't. This attempted power play is frightening and would fundamentally dilute voters' power in America by making us beholden to the whims of one person - the king. I don't want a president from any party with that kind of power.

Posted by: samwoods77 | May 24, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lgaide

For all the claims that the Democrats are the big spending party, history documents that it has been Republican administrations that have busted the budget time after time. While Pres Clinton gave the country budget surpluses, it was Reagan and Bush II that plunged the country into record deficits. Bush, alone, DOUBLED the National Debt in 8 years.

==================

Let's restate the record . . . Clinton did not bring a surplus alone, he did it because he was smart enough to go along with a very republican congress who created the contract with America and balanced the budget.

There's plenty of blame to spread around to both parties for out of control spending.

It's just that this administration has taken spending and debt to levels that we may never recover from.

Do any of you libs care? You really think our president is Santa Claus and Pelosi and friends are the elves.

Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

So, he wants line item veto, does he?

Basically, that's what he's asking for.

Anyone here what he had to say about it when clintoon and bush both asked for it?

course not.

Posted by: docwhocuts | May 24, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Hey, where's that budget? Its almost June,
and Democrats don't have one yet!
The whole premise of the Democratic Party is Entitlements...so, "Not Spending" would
put them Out of Business, wouldn't it?!

Posted by: ohioan | May 24, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

("The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010" That is hilarious. Who comes up with these?)

Almost as funny as the 'Healthy Forests Initiative' which opened thousands of square miles to clear cutting.

This concept -- the line item veto -- would be a NATURAL for the GOP to support, if they REALLY wanted spending to be curtailed.

Brilliant stroke on Obama's part. Got 'em over a barrel again.

Posted by: leajones99 | May 24, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

DOA- nice ploy.

Posted by: moebius22 | May 24, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It’s put up or shut up for the GOP – The Grand Obstructionist Party.

================

If "obstructionist" means stopping the democrats volcano of big government and the mad, mad spending I wouldn't care if they called the GOP the "Jerk Party"

That's the importance of a name for me. If you're into names great . . . I'm into saving what's left of my country.

Posted by: reddog62
******************************************************************
For all the claims that the Democrats are the big spending party, history documents that it has been Republican administrations that have busted the budget time after time. While Pres Clinton gave the country budget surpluses, it was Reagan and Bush II that plunged the country into record deficits. Bush, alone, DOUBLED the National Debt in 8 years.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: AdmiralX

Where do these idiots come from? They invariably sound like those prophets wearing sandwich boards proclaiming the end of the world.

================

Of course you and your friends in the mass of mindless morons who think the future of America is secure no matter what we do - right?

We are on an unsustainable path . . . and no the world will not end . . . but prosperity will end when the farm is given away.

Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

In the end an Amendment will probably be necessary to get a line item type veto that the SC will agree to (unless of course the liberal stretchy Constitution philosophy wins the day).


A funny thing however about the President having this power is that he (or she someday) will become almost more accountable for over- and wasteful-spending than the unaccountable herd that makes up the Congress.


The President will truly become King of America with this power.


Posted by: bcarte1 | May 24, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob Obama wants legislation to cover up for his utter failure to lead our nation.


"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18

"Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (55%) disapprove."

Miserable failure Obama

Posted by: screwjob15 | May 24, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Give even more control and power to Obama and his administration when they've messed up so much in such a short time? Insane. What will this man push next, the power and control to stay in the white house indefinitely? I seriously believe that way too many in this country would go for that. Creepy times these.

Posted by: thebink | May 24, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

It’s put up or shut up for the GOP – The Grand Obstructionist Party.

================

If "obstructionist" means stopping the democrats volcano of big government and the mad, mad spending I wouldn't care if they called the GOP the "Jerk Party"

That's the importance of a name for me. If you're into names great . . . I'm into saving what's left of my country.

Posted by: reddog62
******************************************************************
For all the claims that the Democrats are the big spending party, history documents that it has been Republican administrations that have busted the budget time after time. While Pres Clinton gave the country budget surpluses, it was Reagan and Bush II that plunged the country into record deficits. Bush, alone, DOUBLED the National Debt in 8 years.

Posted by: lgaide | May 24, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Charlie (the tuna):

Gallup reports what I had been assuming all along: Obama has 48% support of those polled while 45% disapprove. Can you say "tea baggers"?

Posted by: Saveus2 | May 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Where do these idiots come from? They invariably sound like those prophets wearing sandwich boards proclaiming the end of the world.

Posted by: AdmiralX | May 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Charlie (the tuna):

Gallup reports what I had been assuming all along: Obama has 48% support of those polled while 45% disapprove. Can you say "tea baggers"?

Posted by: Saveus2 | May 24, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

It’s put up or shut up for the GOP – The Grand Obstructionist Party.

================

If "obstructionist" means stopping the democrats volcano of big government and the mad, mad spending I wouldn't care if they called the GOP the "Jerk Party"

That's the importance of a name for me. If you're into names great . . . I'm into saving what's left of my country.

Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Right now Senator Shelby (R-ALA) is holding up Hundreds of Government Management Positions so that he can win concessions for even more government funded contracts (Socialist Welfare) in Alabama.

He is Blocking Critical Jobs responsible for Preventing Terrorism in spite of """Hundreds of Billions""" of Taxpayer money towards the Alabama based Littoral ship building program.

At $550 Million each the $302~$352 Billion Littoral Ship building program represents Federal money that is flowing to Alabama. Shelby is a Total Hypocrite that would sacrifice America’s national security for personal gain. We have a word for that.

Maybe he will Stop and Allow people to do their Jobs if we allow the Sales of Alabama Built Littoral Warships to South Korea and Saudi Arabia.

He is Blocking Critical Jobs responsible for Preventing Terrorism while complaining at the same time why the TSA and other agencies are having management manning problems.

At $550 Million each the $302~$352 Billion Littoral Ship building program based in Alabama can be extended to sales to South Korea.

Pentagon official: Navy to buy more combat ships

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031802543.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7_BFg0wh5cb2Q-TSLdvoHOIw7yQD953U9EG0


In the Sep 26 2008 Presidential debate, John McCain denounced the Navy's potential purchase of the cost overrun plagued Littoral combat ship (went from $220 Million each to $550 Million each) which is built in Alabama. Now the Navy is planning on buying 55~64 for a cost of $302~352 Billion.

For Both Parties: If you are serious about Debt Reduction then End the Bush Era $2 Trillion in Tax Cuts for the Rich; and Tax Imported Gasoline .50~$1/Gallon to pay for JOBS Programs.

Posted by: liveride | May 24, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The original line-item veto was declared unconstitutional, so why do they think this verson would survive judicial review?

The power over the budget is Congress' most important power over the executive branch. They should be more careful with it.

Posted by: jlm101514 | May 24, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his Administration needs investigated for the confirmed bribery of Democrat Senate candidate Sestak. This Illegal Act has fallen on the progressive liberal medias deaf ears. A cover story or continued ignoring of this factual event will follow in the Post.

Obama is a National DISGRACE. This illegal act of bribery will not go unanswered, and can't be ignored forever. Obama will of course provide some scapegoat as the responsible party when the s hits the fan. Obama is an incompetant creep.

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | May 24, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his Administration needs investigated for the confirmed bribery of Democrat Senate candidate Sestak. This Illegal Act has fallen on the progressive liberal medias deaf ears. A cover story or continued ignoring of this factual event will follow in the Post.

Obama is a National DISGRACE. This illegal act of bribery will not go unanswered, and can't be ignored forever. Obama will of course provide some scapegoat as the responsible party when the s hits the fan. Obama is an incompetant creep.

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | May 24, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his Administration needs investigated for the confirmed bribery of Democrat Senate candidate Sestak. This Illegal Act has fallen on the progressive liberal medias deaf ears. A cover story or continued ignoring of this factual event will follow in the Post.

Obama is a National DISGRACE. This illegal act of bribery will not go unanswered, and can't be ignored forever. Obama will of course provide some scapegoat as the responsible party when the s hits the fan. Obama is an incompetant creep.

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | May 24, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

IMPEACH OBOZO THE CLOWN


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18

Posted by: charlietuna666 | May 24, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

If Republican obstructionists, who rail about federal deficit and “out-of-control spending”, are to be taken seriously, they should give the president the tool to control spending. Congress is addicted to “earmarks to peddle influence. It’s put up or shut up for the GOP – The Grand Obstructionist Party.

Posted by: JJames081 | May 24, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I'd hate to be a Republican.

Obama requests a means to reduce spending and I'd have to stand up and shriek that Obama wasn't trying to reduce spending.

I would know that the Fox News rubes wouldn't catch on, but I would feel like an idiot knowing what the thinking and aware people thought of my silly performance.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 24, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

This guy never ceases to amaze me!

From the very beginning you could have called him the "earmark" president.

The worthless stimulus bill (yes I said worthless) contained at least 9000 earmarks and was passed in a historic slam that seemed like a battering ram going thru' the nation's capital.

For Obama, campaigning on fiscal responsibility this bill was a flip-flop to end all flip-flops.

And now he wants to have earmark veto power. That's like a bank robber installing a surveillance system after he makes his getaway. Nice try.

Posted by: reddog62 | May 24, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010" That is hilarious. Who comes up with these?

Posted by: marty3dj | May 24, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Anything Obama does is for control. He's spoken again about creating a one world order. Don't you know what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket?

Posted by: 45upnorth | May 24, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Anything Obama does is for control. He's spoken again about creating a one world order. Don't you know what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket?

Posted by: 45upnorth | May 24, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Ha Haah haa .Your kidding right? ROFLMAO !

Posted by: Imarkex | May 24, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company