defense spending bill adulterared with ANWR drilling bill

f100supersabr · #1 (**permalink**) 12-21-2005, 04:18 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...c.drilling.ap/

The Senate had the ANWR drilling Bill attached to the defense legislation so both went down in flames. I understand the rational of trying to tie the ANWR Bill to the defense spending bill because in the future the opposition party can point fingers and say that certain Senators voted against the defense bill. This time the trick play worked for the Repubs but it can work against the Repubs in the future.

I would like to have the rule changed so that there is a one topic bill and only one topic per bill.

I happen to believe that both bills should have been passed but I absolutely want them to be separate. This game has gone on for far too long.

What this causes in delays of good and needed legislation and at times it causes bad legislation to be added TO A GOOD BILL.

This not a partisan issue since this can cut both ways.

Does anyone out there feel that we have a ghost of a chance in the future to have pure bill ???

SenaxFlatulus · #2 (**permalink**) 12-21-2005, 04:37 PM

There was talk a while back about a line item veto for the president to have. That got canned too.

I suppose it's because Congress wouldn't want to do all that hard work by making each bill separate like you suggest. I agree, it would be a good idea. All the politicians would have to actually, you know... work at their jobs.

stekim · #3 (**permalink**) 12-22-2005, 04:12 AM

danarhea · #4 (**permalink**) 12-22-2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

There was talk a while back about a line item veto for the president to have. That got canned too.

I suppose it's because Congress wouldn't want to do all that hard work by making each bill separate like you suggest. I agree, it would be a good idea. All the politicians would have to actually, you know... work at their jobs.

Clinton pushed hard for the line item veto, but never got it. Bush mentioned it in passing when he was first elected in order to test the waters. The waters were still pretty rough from the Clinton debacle with this issue, so Bush left it alone. Fact is, Congress doesnt want it, and whether Democrat or Republican controlled, will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. After all, its their pork on the line.

I am 100% in favor of the line item veto.

f100supersabr · #5 (**permalink**) 12-23-2005, 09:40 AM

Danarea wrote

Quote:

Clinton pushed hard for the line item veto, but never got it. Bush mentioned it in passing when he was first elected in order to test the waters. The waters were still pretty rough from the Clinton debacle with this issue, so Bush left it alone. Fact is, Congress doesnt want it, and whether Democrat or Republican controlled, will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. After all, its their pork on the line. I am 100% in favor of the line item veto.

You are so correct neither party wants any limits on it power. !! The repubs when they controlled nothing talked of the line item veto just as they talked about "term limits". Now that they have complete control have you noticed the deafaning noise of the line iten veto and term limit bills being written ? The line item veto is the same struggle between the executive and the legislative branches of government that we have seen all along.

The verdict is BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode