« | »

BHO Still Claims To Want Line Item Cuts

From a seemingly believing Reuters:

Obama seeks way to cut costs from spending bills

May 24, 2010

By Jeff Mason Mon May 24, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is sending a proposal to Congress on Monday that would make it quicker and easier to trim wasteful costs from U.S. congressional spending bills, the White House said.

The "Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010" would enable the president to submit a package of cuts, or "rescissions," to Congress after lawmakers pass the various appropriations bills that fund federal programs every year.

Obama has made spending cuts a key ingredient in his efforts to reduce the U.S. budget deficit, which hit $1.4 trillion in 2009, just shy of 10 percent of the overall economy.

Oh, our sides.

His proposal, which requires congressional approval, would give Obama and his successors a stronger hand in cutting items they do not support from spending bills.

The White House said the proposal differs from a line-item veto in which a president unilaterally cuts specific provisions from a spending bill. The Supreme Court has rejected a presidential line-item veto as unconstitutional.

Under Obama’s proposal, Congress would have to look at the president’s slate of suggested cuts as a package and, without making any amendments, give them an up-or-down vote within a specific period of time.

This would speed up the process used by presidents to reduce special provisions, commonly called "earmarks" or "pork," that lawmakers add to spending bills, making them more expensive.

U.S. presidents currently have the authority to propose changes to spending bills, but Congress can make changes to the president’s proposals if it wishes…

White House budget director Peter Orszag said the proposal would help tackle the country’s budget challenges.

"It adds to the arsenal in trying to cut back on unnecessary spending," Orszag told reporters. "It’s not a panacea, but it’s an important additional tool." …

This is just more on the same news we posted back on May 7th.

As that earlier article noted:

Under existing law, a president can send Congress a request to rescind items in spending bills after a bill is signed into law, but if Congress does not approve the request within 45 working days, the money must be released. And Congress, traditionally protective of its constitutional power of the purse, usually ignores such presidential requests, killing them.

President George W. Bush did not propose any rescissions, according to the Congressional Research Service. Republicans in Congress have challenged Mr. Obama to do so, but he has not.

That’s how serious Mr. Obama is about cutting spending.

Which is to say, not at all.

(Thanks to Mr_Bill for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, May 24th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

12 Responses to “BHO Still Claims To Want Line Item Cuts”

  1. mr_bill says:

    From Reuters:

    Obama seeks way to trim costs from spending bills

    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is sending a proposal to Congress on Monday that would make it quicker and easier to trim “wasteful” costs from congressional spending bills, an administration official said.

    The “Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010” would enable the president to submit a package of cuts or “rescissions” to Congress after lawmakers pass one of the annual spending or appropriations bills that fund federal programs every year.

    Under the terms of the proposal, Congress would have to look at the president’s slate of suggested cuts as a package and, without making any amendments, give them an up-or-down vote within a specific period of time.

    This would speed up the process used by presidents to reduce special provisions, commonly called “earmarks” or “pork,” that lawmakers tag on to spending bills, making them more expensive.

    The administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s proposals were not an attempt to provide the president with a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court has previously struck down.

    If it were any other president, even Carter or BJ Clinton, I might not be suspect of their intentions. I refuse to believe Nerobama wants this power so he can curtail spending, in fact, I don’t believe he will do anything positive if he is granted this power. Call me a cynic, but I don’t trust Neville Obama any farther than I could throw Aunt Zeituni’s fat arse.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      The process for budgeting rest squarely within CONGRESS, not the president. This is yet another attempt by the boy to usurp the Constitution by trickery and cleverness. One, it’s not so clever and two, it’s flat out illegal. For, once congress gives an “up or down” indication, what’s to stop them from further “enhancing” the process and leaving congress out of it altogether?

      Obviously, the boy doesn’t like the cumbersome nature of a representative government….and owing to his brilliant career decisions, it’s obvious he has much better ideas than even his pliant and malleable minions in congress.

      This is where the republicans need to highlight activities like this and scream loudly and often, “NO!”

    • proreason says:

      “The administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s proposals were not an attempt to provide the president with a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court has previously struck down. ”

      Like Rush says…..they always tell you their plan.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      “This would speed up the process used by presidents to reduce special provisions, commonly called “earmarks” or “pork,” that lawmakers tag on to spending bills, making them more expensive.”

      What if they are just bloody awful and ridiculously (unsustainably) expensive to begin with?

      No, this gives the president too much power.

      Clearly the desire for “more speed” is anathema to the representative form of government to begin with. It is intentionally cumbersome and for good reason. The correct, right and proper action(s) often take time to come to the fore.

      The architects of our government clearly indicated and blueprinted conditions when speed of decisions was paramount. But a budget? Nonsense.

      Once again, lil barry is really t-eed off about how slow things go in government. That speaks volumes about his impatience and by direct analogy, his immaturity.

    • mr_bill says:

      The Constitution’s Origination clause (Article 1, Section 7) states that “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Some have argued that this relates only to taxation and not to spending. However, in Federalist 66, Alexander Hamilton elaborated, “The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives,” making the case stronger that the Founders’ meaning of the Origination Clause is to extend to not only taxation but spending as well. In practice, the Power of Origination has always been treated as exclusive to the House.

      That argument aside, the President has no power to amend a Congressional bill, as above stated, ” Senate may propose or concur with Amendments…” The Constitution does not say that the President may propose or concur with Amendments.

      While I would welcome a tool for the executive office to remove onerous items from otherwise good legislation, I believe that this or any similar legislation grants far too much power to the executive office and effectively removes a balance of power between the legislature and the executive office.

      Line item veto and other iterations of the concept have been proposed and embraced by Republicans in the past, and struck down by the Supreme Court. I cannot agree with that party position and I demur to the Supreme Court on this one.

      In the hands of a Reagan, it would be a beneficial tool. But in the hands of an Obama, it would enable far too much destruction. The tool is far too powerful to be entrusted to one man and the balance crafted by the Founders should must be maintained.

    • proreason says:

      “In the hands of a Reagan, it would be a beneficial tool. But in the hands of an Obama, it would enable far too much destruction.”

      The Founders were right about everything.

      But even if they were not, no society can function without laws.

      The most dangerous thing about the boy king is that he and his handlers seek to subvert the law in every way conceivably. In their eyes, THEY ARE THE LAW.

      That is reason enough to stop them, even if you don’t accept the obvous truth that they are out to destroy this country and reconstitute it with them as dictators forever.

  2. JohnMG says:

    ……”This would speed up the process used by presidents to reduce special provisions, commonly called “earmarks” or “pork,” that lawmakers add to spending bills, making them more expensive…..”

    Would it include bribes to candidates with the intention of having them abandon the race?

    And Rusty…….”Obviously, the boy doesn’t like the cumbersome nature of a representative government….”

    Surely we should yield to the superior intellect of this sage constitutional scholar, shouldn’t we? (sarc off)

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    Obama has made spending cuts a key ingredient in his efforts to reduce the U.S. budget deficit, which hit $1.4 trillion in 2009, just shy of 10 percent of the overall economy.

    Are we really suppose to believe the “BIG LIE” if it’s told over and over and over and over and over ………………….?

    Personally, I’m sick of the dribble and spittle coming from the lying lips of a closet mooselimb.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Word on the street is that he’s not just a closet moose limb….but something else. Ever seen him throw a baseball? Thweet.

  4. Steve says:

    Obama asks Hill for line-item veto he once opposed – Washington Times
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/when-president-george-w-bush-called-for-a-kind-of-/

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      It’s very clear, Line-item veto for Bush=bad, for mr ears=good.

      Hypocrisy distilled to its purest form and then decanted to all the drinkers of the kool-aid.

      I suspect they will say yes in order to not appear racist, or some such blather. Then, it’s martial law when riots break out when little timmy is told to stop printing money and a gallon of gas is 20 bucks.

      Yup. That’s what I see on my scope.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »