johnwk
11-17-2007, 12:54 PM
Mitt Romney has stated that if line item veto power were available to the President, it would be “the most powerful tool a president of the United States could have to rein in unnecessary pork barrel, earmarked spending." SEE: Romney assails Giuliani for favoring commuter tax (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/04/romney-assails-giuliani-for-favoring-commuter-tax/)
The truth is, if line item veto were available to the president, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself, so, let us start from the beginning because understanding our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, exposes those who are attempting to subjugate the very foundations of federalism, our Constitution’s plan.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress
''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__''
No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and attempting to have a bill so amended enacted into law.
Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power favored by Mitt Romney.
Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/604.htm) of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
The Convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail which line-item veto most assuredly would resurrect and which Romney supports!
If Romney is sincere in wanting to control reckless spending and borrowing, and encourage Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, he ought to be promoting our Founding Father’s plan, and in particular, the founder’s method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress’s pork barrel spending. This method would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to finance its pork during the course of a fiscal year!
Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to pay for its pork, Congress was then intended to lay a direct tax among the states for the total sum of the deficit created.
To insure protection against the abuse of the direct taxing power found in our Constitution, our founding fathers provided a fair share formula to be followed which determines each State`s share of any general tax laid among the states, and in particularly, when Congress decides to call upon the people of the various States to extinguish a deficit created by Congress.
Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, that fair share formula may be represented as follows:
State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
The theory of the founder`s fair share formula is very much part of federalism and based upon a conservative idea ___ Representation with proportional obligation,___ an idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread with a passion!
After determining each state`s share of the sum to be raised using the fair share formula, each State`s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill for their State`s share of the tax and the various state Governors and Legislatures are to be left with the responsibility of transferring their State`s share from the state treasury into the treasury of the United States, or, raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the treasury of the United States. For documentation of this tax being practiced see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and each state`s share of the tax. Also see:Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.
Those who view themselves as being ``conservatives`` and who support federalism, our Constitution’s plan, should ask themselves what would happen to the king of pork, the pride and joy of Pennsylvania, Representative John Murtha, if he should have to return home with a bill for his state Governor and Legislature to pay to finance the millions of pork barrel earmarks he now channels to his district by plundering the federal treasury?
The point is, our founder`s plan provides a very real moment of accountability when Congress engages in reckless spending and borrowing, and yet, not one of our Republican candidates running for the Presidency including Mitt Romney, our line item veto con artist, dares to promote our Constitution’s solution to pork barrel borrowing and spending.
Under the Founder’s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a “United Nations” [a money laundering operation] are to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the apportioned tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.
Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!
Bottom line
We don’t need a line item veto power being exercise by the Executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the national Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want.
What we need is for our Republican candidates to support and defend our existing Constitution and the solutions our founding fathers wrote into that instrument to make members of Congress the servants of the people and not their masters.
Regards,
JWK
The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.
The truth is, if line item veto were available to the president, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself, so, let us start from the beginning because understanding our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, exposes those who are attempting to subjugate the very foundations of federalism, our Constitution’s plan.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress
''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__''
No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and attempting to have a bill so amended enacted into law.
Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power favored by Mitt Romney.
Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/604.htm) of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
The Convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail which line-item veto most assuredly would resurrect and which Romney supports!
If Romney is sincere in wanting to control reckless spending and borrowing, and encourage Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, he ought to be promoting our Founding Father’s plan, and in particular, the founder’s method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress’s pork barrel spending. This method would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to finance its pork during the course of a fiscal year!
Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to pay for its pork, Congress was then intended to lay a direct tax among the states for the total sum of the deficit created.
To insure protection against the abuse of the direct taxing power found in our Constitution, our founding fathers provided a fair share formula to be followed which determines each State`s share of any general tax laid among the states, and in particularly, when Congress decides to call upon the people of the various States to extinguish a deficit created by Congress.
Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, that fair share formula may be represented as follows:
State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
The theory of the founder`s fair share formula is very much part of federalism and based upon a conservative idea ___ Representation with proportional obligation,___ an idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread with a passion!
After determining each state`s share of the sum to be raised using the fair share formula, each State`s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill for their State`s share of the tax and the various state Governors and Legislatures are to be left with the responsibility of transferring their State`s share from the state treasury into the treasury of the United States, or, raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the treasury of the United States. For documentation of this tax being practiced see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and each state`s share of the tax. Also see:Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.
Those who view themselves as being ``conservatives`` and who support federalism, our Constitution’s plan, should ask themselves what would happen to the king of pork, the pride and joy of Pennsylvania, Representative John Murtha, if he should have to return home with a bill for his state Governor and Legislature to pay to finance the millions of pork barrel earmarks he now channels to his district by plundering the federal treasury?
The point is, our founder`s plan provides a very real moment of accountability when Congress engages in reckless spending and borrowing, and yet, not one of our Republican candidates running for the Presidency including Mitt Romney, our line item veto con artist, dares to promote our Constitution’s solution to pork barrel borrowing and spending.
Under the Founder’s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a “United Nations” [a money laundering operation] are to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the apportioned tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.
Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!
Bottom line
We don’t need a line item veto power being exercise by the Executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the national Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want.
What we need is for our Republican candidates to support and defend our existing Constitution and the solutions our founding fathers wrote into that instrument to make members of Congress the servants of the people and not their masters.
Regards,
JWK
The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.