Memo to New House Majority Leader John Boehner
Congratulations on your victory.
Now that you’ve been elected Majority Leader by your colleagues, please read this post:
This Weekend’s Unanswered Questions (012806):
- QUESTION 1: Whatever happened to the line-item veto?
- QUESTION 2: Why aren’t we hearing about repealing the 1974 Budget Act?
- QUESTION 3: ….. (go there to read the question) despite the fact that he didn’t win, I think it still needs to be pursued.
________________________
UPDATE: Wizbang calls this an “upset,” and so do many others in the press and the blogs. I don’t get it. First, I totally expected this based not on ESP (I wish), but on readily available info at The Wall Street Journal and other places that Blunt would not get a majority on the first ballot. Second, I’m personally not upset at all. :-)
UPDATE 2: Americans for Prosperity reacts, in part: “(Boehner) was also one of only eight principled House members to vote against last summer’s pork-filled highway bill, and he’s never stuck a pork project into a spending bill during his 15 years in Congress. That’s what we call leadership. Best of luck to Leader Boehner.”
[...] cuz they only have a few months to demonize Boehner. Local reaction at WMD, LargeBill and BizzyBlog has some questions. And don’t miss this morning’s prescient column by Mike Meckler is [...]
Pingback by NixGuy.com » John Boehner Blog Roundup — February 2, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Line item veto was struck down by a federal court and eventually, the Supreme Court not long after it was passed.
As for the budget act…Would you prefer that impoundment be restored? Do we really need yet another unchecked power in the executive branch?
Comment by Kevin Irwin — February 2, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
#2, the link explains my positions, which are:
– that the LIV can be done constitutionally (there was talk of this after the Supremes nixed it, but it disappeared along with everything else during Monica). Assuming they weren’t blowing smoke, they should try to address the concerns raised by the justices who nullified it. Clinton supported the LIV.
– The the LIV vote was 6-3. Thomas was in the 6, and an appropriate rewrite IMO would get upheld by him. Add Roberts and Alito, who I also thing would support it, and there’s your majority.
– The country survived 180-plus years with “unchecked” impoundment powers in the hands of the president. Now it’s as if the agencies have to spend the money appropriated even if there’s no good reason to. The 1974 Act was a rollover job on a very weakened President. Since then, budget control has been almost impossible because of what was just mentioned and (this isn’t at the link) baseline budgeting, where the liars in Congress estimate what they’re going to spend next year and call any reduction in planned spending a “cut,” even though it’s an increase in spending over the prior year.
– The need to control pork and waste is critical, and the president should have powers almost all governors have.
Comment by TBlumer — February 2, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
I’m with you on the LIV. I don’t like the ability to impound, however.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — February 2, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
#4, If I had to choose, I would take LIV first. That probably solves 70% of the problem. A rethink of the 1974 act might solve the rest of it even if impoundment powers aren’t restored.
Comment by TBlumer — February 2, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
Tom,
Both the impoundment provisions of the 1974 Budget Act and the Line-Item Veto were nixed by the Supreme Court in a variety of rulings from the Burger and Rehnquist years. The general reasoning was that the text of a law cannot be changed after its approval, and removing appropriations changes the text of a law. Getting the Line Item Veto is really going to require a constitutional amendment. But then, so will requiring a balanced budget and imposing term limits on Congress.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for any of those three.
Comment by Michael Meckler — February 3, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
#6, Yikes. I don’t understand the 1974 Budget act point. Presidents up to Nixon had impoundment powers. The 1974 act took them away. Are you saying the Court restored them? (that would be news to the WSJ, which did an editorial on this a week ago)
I don’t agree on term limits. They failed at the Supremes by one vote, if I recall, and the I think the two newbies would enable them to pass by one vote. If you’re saying Congress itself, as opposed to individual states, can’t impose term limits, I believe that would be correct.
From Wiki:
In May 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in US Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 514 US 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal representatives or senators.
Comment by TBlumer — February 3, 2006 @ 6:46 pm