Breaking Down the Veto Vote
The Club for Growth blog identifies the 15 “Republicans” that voted against giving the president the power to send individual budget items back to congress to force a vote on that item. In other words, these are the 15 “Republicans” that voted in favor of earmarks, big government and continued congressional waste of our taxdollars:
| Lawmaker | Lawmaker | Lawmaker |
| Aderholt (AL-04) | Lewis, Jerry (CA-41) | Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03) |
| Buyer (IN-04) | Northup (KY-03) | Simmons (CT-02) |
| Emerson (MO-08) | Otter (ID-01) | Simpson (ID-02) |
| Hobson (OH-07) | Paul (TX-14) | Sweeney (NY-20) |
| Jones, W. (NC-03) | Rogers, H. (KY-05) | Walsh (NY-25) |
Those with a gray background in the table above actually sit on the powerful Appropriations Committee.
And so the Club for Growth offers the following points in their analysis:
- 9 out of the 15 GOP “NO” votes came from appropriators.
- With 36 GOPers on the Appropriations Committee, this still means that 25% of GOP appropriators “failed to give up even a modest amount of their now unchecked power” (including the Chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis).
- Only 2 of the 29 Dem appropriators voted “Yes” on the line item veto, meaning 93% of Democrats who spend our money voted to keep the power to spend without further restraint.
Ron Paul from Texas is the one that puzzles me the most.
Technorati Tags: RINO Watch,
Wasting Taxpayer Money,
Line Item Veto,
United States Budget,
Appropriations Committee,
Club for Growth.
Since you find Ron Paul’s vote confusing let me explain it to you?
What is the point of giving Bush additional powers veto powers when he’s never used the one he already has? Does anyone seriously believe a line item veto would have any effect on spending with a President who passed oscenties like the farm bill or the highway bill?
This whole stupid debate, like everything the Congress has done the last two months, from the homosexual marriage ammendment, to immigration, to the flag burning ammendment is just bread and circuses to distract Republican voters from the total lack of a single meaningful accomplishment in six years of having total control of the government.
I for one am thankful that Ron Paul had the principle not to participate in this farce. And frankly, the only thing that disgusts me more than Congress is that the Republican voters have become such predictable, easily manipulated tools that this strategy actually appears to be working.
Yes, the Line Item Veto is bad news, it will and has been ruled UnConstitutional.
Thank God for Ron Paul.
I can just see Bush or soon the democrat president saying, ‘if you dont vote for my bill XYZ I am going to line item veto your amendment to bill XZY.
Jeeze, dont you get it alfa?
I’m kinda torn on this issue.
(Remembr, folks, I’m a straight-up Pinko. I mean reall, I’m a Communist. Just remember.)
On the one hand…
Using a budgitary line-item veto would certainly help the tax burdon. It could help us cut the corporate pork and corrupt spending that so often happens in Washington.
On the other hand…
You get someone like Bush in the Big Seat, or a Nixon, or someone even more corrupt, you’d see slashes in our good spending while other projects are left unmolested. It puts a lot of power into executive hands, and it’s power I don’t trust.
So, it’s an either-or situation.
The only thing a “corrupt” president could do is send the item back to Congress for a separate vote. If it really is “good” spending (which comprises about 2% of how our tax dollars are used) then Congress will pass it.
What people fail to realize (Micky) is that this won’t be used very often (it wasn’t when it was passed the last time before the Supremes said it was unconstitutional). A president that abuses his line-item veto will soon see very little of his legislation and judicial appointments make its way through the committee system.