H.R.3521 Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011

Sponsor: Paul D. Ryan
Introduced: November 30, 2011
Passed House: February 8, 2012 254 – 173

Impoundment is the decision by the President not to spend money that has already been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The precedent for presidential impoundment was first set by Thomas Jefferson in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. The Act was inspired by Richard Nixon’s refusal to disburse nearly $12 billion of congressionally-appropriated funds in 1973-74 through the executive power of impoundment, as well as more generalized fears about the budget deficit. Nixon claimed that the deficit was causing high inflation and that as a result he needed to curb government spending. Title X of the Act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. This severely inhibited a president’s ability to combat excessive spending.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose the rescinding of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, this has removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.

H.R.3521 gives the president the power to require a vote in Congress, within 60 days and without amendment, on whether to uphold the proposed cuts. It could be used only to target discretionary spending, not entitlement programs or individual tax provisions.

Paul Ryan:

The bill would require lawmakers to “think twice” about adding provisions to spending bills, because they may end up having to publicly defend the provisions if the president seeks to cancel them. The measure of success of this reform will not be measured by how many individual spending line items get voted out of spending by Congress, but how many items don’t get put in these bills in the first place.

There are many who read about this action in the House and can barely stifle a yawn from reading it. I understand the cynicism on whether the bill will actually become law.  SCOTUS has already declared the line item veto act passed in the 1990s as unconstitutional because it violated the “finely wrought” legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.  SCOTUS did not declare the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 unconstitutional for violating established precedent for presidential impoundment. Perhaps unrelated, but the Watergate scandal might have been the reason why. I do think this is a good bill for the reasons Paul Ryan provides.

I also think there will always be a tug of war between the President and Congress over command and control of the power to spend federal dollars. The 41 GOP members of the House who voted “No” are not all RINOs. What they have in common is a desire to hold onto power and control in spending federal dollars. I list them below.

1. Robert B. Aderholt R AL-4
2. Rodney Alexander R LA-5
3. Justin Amash R MI-3
4. Steve Austria R OH-7
5. Spencer Bachus R AL-6
6. Jo Bonner R AL-1
7. C. Boustany Jr. R LA-7
8. Paul Broun R GA-10
9. Dan Burton R IN-5
10. Ken Calvert R CA-44
11. John Carter R TX-31
12. Tom Cole R OK-4
13. Ander Crenshaw R FL-4
14. Jeffrey Duncan R SC-3
15. Jo Ann Emerson R MO-8
16. Kay Granger R TX-12
17. Morgan Griffith R VA-9
18. J. Herrera Beutler R WA-3
19. Duncan D. Hunter R CA-52
20. Walter B. Jones R NC-3
21. Steve King R IA-5
22. S. C. LaTourette R OH-14
23. Raul Labrador R ID-1
24. Jeff Landry R LA-3
25. Jerry Lewis R CA-41
26. Alan Nunnelee R MS-1
27. Steven Palazzo R MS-4
28. Martha Roby R AL-2
29. Harold Rogers R KY-5
30. Mike D. Rogers R AL-3
31. Tom Rooney R FL-16
32. Austin Scott R GA-8
33. Bill Shuster R PA-9
34. Mike Simpson R ID-2
35. Glenn Thompson R PA-5
36. Joe Walsh R IL-8
37. Edward Whitfield R KY-1
38. Frank R. Wolf R VA-10
39. Steve Womack R AR-3
40. C. W. Bill Young R FL-10
41. Don Young R AK-1

The Wilberforce Weekend 2012 is scheduled March 30-April 1 2012, and the reason I bring this up is to show a historical example of how a boring mundane bill can be just the beginning of achieving greatness. Check out the bullet points timeline below of William Wilberforce and his political quest to bring an end to the slave trade and slavery itself.

• May 1789 A debate – Wilberforce lost – he knew that the slaves would continue to suffer.
• April 1791 A second debate was held. Wilberforce lost by 75 votes.
• April 1792. A third debate; Wilberforce thought of the slaves’ suffering – he had lost again.
• Early in 1793 he tried again – he lost by eight votes.
• Later, in May 1793 he tried to prohibit British ships from carrying slaves. He was told to get a hairdresser to curl his straight locks; to find a woman; to visit the theatre because his brain had become addled.
• February 1794. He tried again; the Commons passed it – the Lords did not – people began to ostracize him.
• Easter 1796. He tried again, losing by four votes.
• 1804 Another debate – it passed the Commons but the Lords shelved it for a year.
• 2nd May 2, 1806 In the end the merchants were wrong-footed by a separate act suggested by a fellow abolitionist and maritime lawyer called James Steven, which in 1806 banned British subjects from participating in the slave trade to the colonies of France and their allies. At a stroke this wiped out around two thirds of the trade and made Wilberforce’s abolition bill academic. This passed by 22 votes
• February 1807 – another debate! Wilberforce won by 267 votes. The house rose to its feet and turning towards Wilberforce cheered him wildly – he sat with tears streaming down his face. No more Africans would endure the Middle Passage.
• 26th July 1833, a Bill to abolish slavery passed the Commons then the Lords. England paid 20 million to purchase the slaves’ freedom. He could not be there but said, “I thank God that I have lived to witness it.”
• He began to sink. Three days later he died. He was 74.

This history lesson shows me how we never know when some event that seems like no big deal can eventually lead to great success. Turning the direction involved in the spending of federal dollars is of critical importance.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

It is hard to imagine a more tawdry example of political venality than that on display by the Republican no-hopers in the South Carolina primary. It actually started in New Hampshire, when the little yappy dogs got tired of snapping at Romney’s heels and went for the jugular instead. Gang tackling him for his work with a private equity company? Really?

One would expect to hear such rhetoric from the former graduate student currently Occupying the White House, but from Republicans? Especially from Republicans whose major complaint is Romney’s not conservative enough? Yes, Virginia, our President thinks that the main, the only function of business is to give people jobs, and if a company is profitable, it should use those profits to hire more people. Whether there is anything for those new employees to do is immaterial. The important thing is to give people jobs. That’s how wealth is spread around, and let’s face it, the whole country would be better off if we could just spread that wealth around a little bit. Strange for Republicans to be spouting that line of drivel.

This is what anyone who cares whether our nation has any hope of regaining its historical dynamism and opportunities must confront in November. It is unconscionable that we must confront it on what passes for the right wing of the Republican party. The latest stunt, driven by Old Fencepost himself during last night’s debate, is to call on Romney “to release your income tax,” as if his income tax had been sequestered. Why, hell, if ole Mitt the Job Raper would just release his income tax, it might just wipe out the deficit.

What the Texas Tumbleweed is actually asking is for Romney to make his income tax returns public, so, he claims, “the people of this country can see how you’ve made your money.” What Perry really wants is for Romney to show how much income he derived from interest, dividends and capital gains. What he wants Romney to reveal is that, horror of horrors, he is one of the 1%. How on earth can anyone on the Republican side of the debate think there is anything to be gained from fanning the flames of class warfare? This is the Obama strategy. Even Perry, back in his air force days was smart enough not to walk into a turning propeller. Yet that is exactly what this strategy is designed to do.  Hard to believe some people still think this guy has what it takes to be President.

Then there’s Newt Gingrich, who, whenever he isn’t attacking Romney from the Big Government left, is boasting about his status as “a Reagan Conservative.” Yes, the same Newt Gingrich who dismissed Paul Ryan’s attempt to get a handle on medicare before we all start growing grizzled beards and dancing on tables, as “right wing social engineering.” Note to the Newt: A Ronald Reagan Conservative doesn’t use “right wing” as an epithet. In fact, unless she’s discussing airplanes or hockey strategy, a Reagan Conservative doesn’t use “right wing” at all. It seems ever more apparent that Gingrich doesn’t want to rein in the scope and power of government, he just wants to get his hands on the reins.

Rick Santorum welcomed Jon Huntsman’s retirement from the race by using the term “moderate” at least 83 times in a two-minute statement, as in Well, Huntsman’s a moderate, just like Romney is a moderate, and the Republicans don’t want moderates, we want someone with good conservative values, someone who realizes no matter how shaky the economy is, and how dangerous the world is, if we can just ban gay marriage, all those other problems will solve themselves. When did moderation become a bad thing in conservative eyes? Isn’t moderation a defining characteristic of a Conservative? Why does Santorum, or any other conservative, think that a conservative imposing extreme policies against the will of a large portion of the population is going to be any less of an affront to a civil society than when Democrats imposed their extreme left wing policies against the will of a large portion of the population?

Ron Paul’s only function in this race is to allow Obama to look like a tough guy on foreign policy. It really is pathetic that as many as one out of four Republicans might take him seriously. You hear people saying all the time, “Well, yeah, his foreign policy is a little bit off, but I like his stand on the Fed.” Children, his stand on the Fed is immaterial if he hands China our head on a platter. It’s a dangerous world out there, and just because we’ve run away from Iraq and are actively appeasing the bloodthirsty theocratic nutjobs in Iran doesn’t make it any less so. In fact, quite the opposite. Now is not the right time to retreat inside Fortress America.

It really is essential to keep one’s eyes on the prize, which in this case is taking the White House, the Senate, and the country back from the far left Occupiers. Tea Partiers are so isolated from the mainstream, so focused on only listening to the like-minded, that they can’t conceive of a situation in which Obama can be reelected. I can think of at least four situations, which involve nominating any of those ninnies waging class warfare, playing the populist card, and whining, “America, it’s time to come home.” Someone needs to sit these guys down and explain there’s no future in trying to out Obama Obama. He’s got a couple decades’ head start on you. The party line comes naturally to him, it doesn’t to you.

If you are like most Americans you remember much ado about Republicans who voted for an increase in the debt ceiling (I still maintain, a huge mistake) in exchange for a chance to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution before the end of the year.  Well – how did that turn out?

What Happened to the 2011 Balanced Budget Amendment?

Remember the epic Balanced Budget Amendment that was to be voted on before the end of the year?  The one that the “tea party hobbits” wanted?

On November 18th, just after the national debt crossed the $15,000,000,000,000 mark, a  roll call vote failed to get the required 2/3 majority in the House.  Unless you were paying very close attention it probably escaped your notice.  For some reason Republicans didn’t want to make a big deal out of it, and the media didn’t find it interesting enough to put in the spotlight.  Maybe everyone knew it was justWashingtongoing through the motions.  Republicans had used the promise of a balanced budget amendment as their cover for increasing the debt limit earlier, and now nobody really cared whether it passed or not.  After all, we were told, it would have died in the Senate.

The Balanced Budget Amendment was rotten anyway

There were a few good points, but if you are going to amend the Constitution you need to do it right and not just settle.  The amendment required the President to submit a balanced budget, and it did allow an exemption if we were at war.  But, if 2/3 of Congress approved, the amendment allowed the budget to be balanced with a tax hike.  Simply let Democrats, or big government Republicans, get a majority and that hurtle would barely be a speed bump.

Republicans who voted to raise the debt limit earlier certainly felt they had to vote for the amendment as cover, whether they liked it or not.  To their credit, a handful of true conservatives voted against the resolution, including two of my favorites – Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.  Their main complaint was that it allowed the budget to be balanced by raising taxes.  Representative Gohmert said that given the choice he would rather have a cap on spending.  Paul Ryan had pushed for a tougher version of the amendment that would have also set tight caps on annual spending.  Maybe in 2012 we can elect Representatives who will follow their lead and we can get something that conservatives can be proud of.

Ideas don’t run for president; people do. That’s as true today as it was four years ago. So, it is understandable that much of the press and blog coverage of the 2012 GOP primary race has focused on the personalities, experience and record of the candidates rather than their ideas. In fact, until you know the candidates by their actions, you cannot meaningfully judge what their words will mean in practice. Mitt Romney is the prime example of this, having so inconsistent a record that it’s impossible to take seriously the idea that he’s guided by any sort of coherent political philosophy.

But as it happens, we do have three candidates in this race who stand for a distinctive philosophical approach to domestic policy. One of those, Ron Paul, espouses a radical constitutionalism that exists on the periphery of the conservative movement. Rick Perry, while his issue stances are more conventionally (but not always uniformly) conservative, can best be understood through the lens of his guiding principle as a Texas nationalist – a belief that a significant amount of the powers now wielded by the federal government should be returned to the states. And then there’s Newt Gingrich. Newt generates so many new ideas – he develops more firmly-held political convictions before breakfast each morning than Romney’s had his entire life – that it’s tempting to view them as essentially random. But there is a method to the madness. Setting aside for a moment Gingrich’s personal attributes, let’s look at his ideas, with particular attention to two recent interviews he did – one with Ben Domenech, Brad Jackson and Francis Cianfrocca at Coffee and Markets, the other with Glenn Beck. Both provide a keen window into how Newt views domestic policy issues. In the interests of length, I’ll pass over one of the three pillars of Newt’s worldview (his futurism and faith in new technologies), which has been written about extensively, and focus on two others: his gradualism and his revival of what I call “Reform Conservatism.”

Read More →

Ideas don’t run for president; people do. That’s as true today as it was four years ago. So, it is understandable that much of the press and blog coverage of the 2012 GOP primary race has focused on the personalities, experience and record of the candidates rather than their ideas. In fact, until you know the candidates by their actions, you cannot meaningfully judge what their words will mean in practice. Mitt Romney is the prime example of this, having so inconsistent a record that it’s impossible to take seriously the idea that he’s guided by any sort of coherent political philosophy.

But as it happens, we do have three candidates in this race who stand for a distinctive philosophical approach to domestic policy. One of those, Ron Paul, espouses a radical constitutionalism that exists on the periphery of the conservative movement. Rick Perry, while his issue stances are more conventionally (but not always uniformly) conservative, can best be understood through the lens of his guiding principle as a Texas nationalist – a belief that a significant amount of the powers now wielded by the federal government should be returned to the states. And then there’s Newt Gingrich. Newt generates so many new ideas – he develops more firmly-held political convictions before breakfast each morning than Romney’s had his entire life – that it’s tempting to view them as essentially random. But there is a method to the madness. Setting aside for a moment Gingrich’s personal attributes, let’s look at his ideas, with particular attention to two recent interviews he did – one with Ben Domenech, Brad Jackson and Francis Cianfrocca at Coffee and Markets, the other with Glenn Beck. Both provide a keen window into how Newt views domestic policy issues. In the interests of length, I’ll pass over one of the three pillars of Newt’s worldview (his futurism and faith in new technologies), which has been written about extensively, and focus on two others: his gradualism and his revival of what I call “Reform Conservatism.”

Read More →

Once a politician always a politician! Two men are proving that statement is incorrect; we have two new age politicians who are defying the Old Political watchdog’s stance of more spending, more deficits and more Government control.

Ronald Reagan expressed this sentiment when he said, To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last — but eat you he will. Ronald Reagan

Let’s not be the generations who sit back and continue feeding the crocodiles, because the politicians are eating us one piece at a time. Condemning or blaming politicians for their irresponsible ways isn’t a solution, not even a band aid – we must step up to the bat and relieve them of their duties in 2012.

Americans can make 2012 one of the greatest years of our time, if we work together exterminating the White House and removing all of the “Snuckers,” and varmints that have taken up housekeeping living the good life on our time and money.

Many of them have just held their positions too long and lost their way, others are oblivious to the responsibilities that were endowed up them. Remember two things about those holding positions in the Congress; (1) They are our employees, and (2) They aren’t fulfilling their pledge to Americans.

We’ve spent three years of misery while the Obama, the House and the Senate play their vicious game of “Gotcha.” They have worn out their welcome while playing the race card, the poor card and the blame card; in three years they’ve sat on their fannies as our Nation slips into a financial abyss.

As often happens, positive results sometimes are derived from excessive suffering and pain – two men almost from different planets making an unprecedented move for politicians. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) have crafted an awesome idea that will concentrate on wasteful Government spending, reducing the National Deficit and opening up a level playing field for job creation.

A Republican and a Democrat sitting side by side working as a team to help Americans “Take Back Our Country” it’s a classic first step that will open the way to rebuild our Nation’s weak foundation and they need our help.

Paul and Chris have for the first time in three years proposed a plan that would start the economic wheels rolling again, possibly even deflect a drop in our credit rating and this plan will encourage both businesses and consumers if they can get it passed. So of course there’s always an “IF,” but if Americans make their voice audible this time, Congress will probably have to make the first big positive move in three years.

Go to this website to view the bill: Legislative Text of H.R. 3521 – The Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011

Here’s a portion of Paul Ryan’s speech/ and or statement about the new bill. Congress will truly have worse than egg on their face if they ignore Chris Van Hollen and Paul Ryan’s proposal.
“The fiscal and economic challenges facing our nation are immense. In addition to the alarming budget deficit and painful jobs deficit, Washington’s failure to tackle these challenges fuels a growing credibility deficit. For years, policymakers – in both political parties – have failed to serve as responsible stewards of American families’ hard-earned tax dollars. Too many politicians continue to make empty promises to those they serve, spending money we don’t have on government programs that don’t work.

The stakes are too great to continue to kick the can down the road. I believe that leaders can – and must – work together to meet these challenges by advancing structural reforms to the drivers of the debt and pro-growth solutions to create a more conducive environment for job creation.”

Instead of sitting here saying poor us – contact John Boehner, Harry Reid, our Senators and of course Barack Obama and let our voices be heard. We want this bill passed, passed and passed!

May God Bless America
As Always,
Little Tboca

Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan‘s budget, is worthless.  As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”

If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?

A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.

In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare.  As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear.  They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.

But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.

The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels.  This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership.  Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.

But what will come of all those cuts, including Obamacare, when the rubber meets the road in late September?

Read More →

Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan‘s budget, is worthless.  As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”

If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?

A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.

In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare.  As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear.  They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.

But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.

The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels.  This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership.  Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.

But what will come of all those cuts, including Obamacare, when the rubber meets the road in late September?

Read More →

It could be the company I keep, but lately it seems the partisan rhetoric from the left is getting more shrill. From the bogus commercial of a Republican throwing grandma over a cliff, to the reasons why Rep. Weiner should not resign. From Jon Stewart being blinded by his own ideology, while at the same time saying he is not driven by it. To the “Frack No” sticker in one of my neighbor’s windows. To understand the sign, you need to know what fracking is and I’m even going to give the environmentalist’s point of view, from SourceWatch:

Fracking (also often referred to as hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking) is a process in which a fluid is injected at high pressure into oil or methane gas deposits to fracture the rock above and release the liquid or gas below. The process and its aftermath has generated controversy because of harm to drinking water and health where it has been used, in Colorado and New Mexico, and more recently in expanded drilling plans in the Marcellus shale in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic states.

Now for the other side, go to “ten things to know about fracking”.

Everything is divided. Right down to the polls. A few weeks ago Rasmussen had Governor Christie at 53%, today a Quinnipiac poll has him at 44% and women don’t like him. Living in one of the bluest counties in New Jersey, I can tell you there is something wrong with the Quinnipiac poll. While his approval is not as high as 53%, his disapproval here, even among the Democrats I know, is not as bad as Quinnipiac would have people believe.

What is a fiscal conservative like me supposed to do in an environment like this? Get my own fix, that’s what.  Here it is, Andrew Klavan on the debt battle.