Hey Big Spender ;P

[Former_Member]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenh...


So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-
•In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
•In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
•Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.



NOTE: Some of the comments to this piece have gotten well out of control, involving threats and obscenity to other commenters and myself. While I welcome and encourage comments from all points of view, obscene remarks are removed and not tolerated. I’ll be happy to jump back into the conversation and reply to some comments when those who are misusing the forum settle down.

[LocoBead]

"No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you."

****************
Right! After all, it is Congress that holds the purse strings. However, the Pres. has the option to do line-item veto of the budget. Budget...when was the last time we had one of those???

(My opinion is just as valid as the opinion of that Forbes contributor.)

[Former_Member]

let me know if i'm reading this wiki c/p right...presidents, since clinton, are no longer permitted to do a line-item veto...


Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.

[SerenaSmithLampwork]

nope. no line item veto. but, it's interesting that some people think there is.

[LocoBead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States

Though the current line-item veto proposal is much weaker than the 1996 version, it has nevertheless failed to find strong support in the Congress. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who was frequently accused, during his tenure in the Senate, of repeatedly inserting pork-barrel spending that favored his state into budget appropriations, called it "an offensive slap at Congress," asserting that the legislation would enable the President to intimidate individual members of any Congress by targeting the projects of his political opponents. He also complained that the line-item veto as proposed would take away the Congress’s constitutional "power of the purse" and give it to the executive branch.

On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center, testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation. Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution’s Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants the Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations.

H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act, was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24-9. It was approved in the full House on June 22. A similar version was included in the "Stop Over Spending Act of 2006",[7] authored by Senator Judd Gregg, in the Senate and approved by the Senate Budget Committee, but the full Senate failed to approve it, thereby preventing the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act from becoming law.

Line Item Veto Re-Enactment Activity of 2009

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation of a limited version of the line-item veto. This bill would give the president the power to withdraw earmarks in new bills by sending the bill back to Congress minus the line-item vetoed earmark. Congress would then vote on the line-item vetoed bill with a majority vote under fast track rules to make any deadlines the bill had.[8][9][10]

[SerenaSmithLampwork]

so, you are saying that the president does have the line item veto?

[Former_Member]

H.R. 4890 (109th): Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006

109th Congress, 2005–2006

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget authority.

Introduced:Mar 07, 2006

Sponsor:Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]

Status: Died (Passed House)

See Instead:This bill was re-introduced as H.R. 689 (110th) on Jan 24, 2007.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr4890




H.R. 689 (110th): Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2007

110th Congress, 2007–2009

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget authority.

Introduced:Jan 24, 2007

Sponsor:Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr689

[Former_Member]

not seeing any confirmation that the Line Item Veto Re-Enactment Activity of 2009 brought forth any actual legislation...

http://web.archive.org/web/20110105025838/http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=309038

[LocoBead]

It has been declared constitutional, within limits, but those pesky libs in congress don't want their pork removed.

[SerenaSmithLampwork]

so, you are saying that the president does not have the line item veto?

[Former_Member]

when i type in 'line item veto constitutionality'...

articles from 1998 court decision that says 'nope'...

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da15e32f0

The Line Item Veto Act was signed into law on April 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-130), and it became effective January 1, 1997. Key provisions allowed the President to cancel any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority provided in an appropriation, any item of new direct spending, or certain limited tax benefits contained in any law. After Congress had been notified of the cancellations in a special message, a period for expedited congressional review of the proposal followed. On August 11, 1997, President Clinton first invoked the new authority; 81 more cancellations followed. On February 12, 1998, the Line Item Veto Act was held unconstitutional (for the second time) in a district court ruling, and on June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion). Measures seeking to provide a constitutional alternative to the Line Item Veto Act have been introduced in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses. President Bush has endorsed the effort to restore the President’s line item veto authority.

In a post-election news conference on November 4, 2004, President Bush reiterated his support for some constitutional device restoring line item veto authority to the President, in order “to maintain budget discipline.” June 24, 2004, an amendment that sought to establish expedited procedures for congressional consideration of certain rescission proposals from the President was rejected in the House by vote of 174-237. On March 11, 2004, the Budget Resolution for FY2005 (S.Con.Res. 95, Section 501), as approved by the Senate, called for budget reform legislation to restrain government spending, possibly to include enhanced rescission or constitutional line-item veto authority for the President. On February 2, 2004, President Bush transmitted his budget documents for FY2005, which again contained some proposals for budget process reform, including a “constitutional line item veto” for the President. On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case Clinton v. New York City, striking down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 as unconstitutional.

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/IB89148.pdf


still working on it in 2010...

May 19, 2010

NOTICE OF SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, has scheduled a hearing on "The Legality and Efficacy of Line-Item Veto Proposals" for Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da15e32f0

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/10-05-24FeingoldStatement.pdf

facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge. There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make. A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, can help us get back on track. And that is what we will explore in today’s hearing. I have advocated for giving the President expedited rescission, or line-item veto, authority for a long time. Over the past two Congresses, I have been pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, in offering a proposal that specifically targets earmark spending. He and I have worked on this issue for several years. While we belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues, we do share at least two things in common—our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin’s tradition of fiscal responsibility.