OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

I once was a supporter of the line item veto, however, I started to move away from support of it when I considered how a partisan president could use it against the opposition party. Any aspect of a bill inserted or supported by the opposition party could be vetoed. This could, in essence, move us toward a single party system and make the president more of a dictator.

We need to have our representatives in Congress do a better job of writing responsible bills although I question whether the current contingent is capable.

I agree. Congress should have this power.. the President, not so much.

We elect the President to be our leader, give him the “LINE ITEM VETO”.

When congress is submitting a spending bill on national defense, why should they be allowed to tack non-related item; for instance “investigating the mating habits of a mosquito”?

If the President vetoes the whole bill because of the attached “investigating the mating habits of a mosquito” provision, the opposing party will condemn the President for not supporting “National Defense”.

For those of you, who are against the “LINE ITEM VETO”, consider this:

If the president uses the “LINE ITEM VETO” on “investigating the mating habits of a mosquito” the congress has three options.

1. Accept the “LINE ITEM VETO”

2. Override the VETO with a two-thirds majority.

3. Introduce the “investigating the mating habits of a mosquito” spending as a stand-alone bill.

This will allow the President to pursue his agenda, and make congress accountable for what they try to slip in on bill of major importance.

I would prefer single issue bills instead of the current misleading bill with 100 pounds of unrelated garbage and pet projects. Example would be a recent credit card bill with gun lobby gimme's in national parks. Can we keep the bills clean and the items in them related to one another? I am not a fan of line item veto for either congress or the president.

The power balance would be unchanged. The line item veto would lead to a line item bill or vice versa. The pitch for or against any item would resolve to “Is it in the best interest of the U.S.A”. Which is what most of us think they are doing now, but seemed to be amazed at the result. Politicians now represent their constituents, consisting of money and/or multitudes, by bartering the interests of one subgroup for the those of another. Neither of which may be in the best interest of the nation, but both end up in the bills. They take pride in compromise! That process also serves as a shield so that one may never know the motive of the voting representative. It is not bad people, ( usually ) but bad process for this institution.

Items that were not in the best interest of the nation may still be valuable at a region or state level and that is where they would migrate if this process was put in place. Perhaps the same process could be put in place at a state level, but that is another topic. Perhaps the size of government at the national level would reduce as it’s mission statement was clarified through repeated voting in the national, not local, or lobbied, best interest. Consider having to choose one good thing or another when budget constraints require such decisions.

The question the media would always ask any Politian is “Why did you think you could get 300 congressman to agree that this item was in the best interest of the U.S.A?” What better way to stop corruption, and abuse of power.

The constitution through the court would still protect minorities should they end up in a win-lose proposition on any law.

Categorization could be allowed to join bills if it could be shown that one without the other was nonsense.