RNC 2008: McCain Speech

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Elok
So take away the Patriot Act BS and substitute a limited LIV. I don't think anyone's going to balance the budget; at this point, nothing but a substantial tax hike or an incredible boost in the economy will do that. But we might as well kill the little stuff since the big stuff apparently has us cornered.

Doing anything about the big stuff requires legislative compromise. That's a lot harder to do when a President can potentially kill half of a compromise.

And you're dreaming if the Presidency is about to cede a significant amount of its authority over national security (and the Patriot Act is a small part of this).

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Doing anything about the big stuff requires legislative compromise. That's a lot harder to do when a President can potentially kill half of a compromise.

Yeah, it makes one wonder how state legislators get anything done at all.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Darius871


Yeah, it makes one wonder how state legislators get anything done at all.

It's that point that makes me curious when people talk of the disruption of checks and balances a line item veto would introduce.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ramo
Doing anything about the big stuff requires legislative compromise. That's a lot harder to do when a President can potentially kill half of a compromise.

Vetoes can be overridden. If the compromise in question is enough to appeal to a critical mass of the Senate, it'll happen. If not, they'll have to compromise with the President instead. It might require fine-tuning, but the system I've described (or tried to describe) doesn't allow him to partial-pass without Congress getting its say beforehand.

And you're dreaming if the Presidency is about to cede a significant amount of its authority over national security (and the Patriot Act is a small part of this).

When did I ever say any of this was going to happen? I was just saying it'd be nice if it did.

[Ramo]

Yeah, it makes one wonder how state legislators get anything done at all.

That's a straw man. I didn't say nothing would get done. And obviously there are other variables that impact legislative inertia (like frequency of elections, ideological composition of the legislature, and rules regarding filibusters).

Incidentally, state governments obviously are significantly smaller than the national government (since states can't borrow, among other reasons). Large programs are rarely passed at that level. So less is done, generally speaking.

Vetoes can be overridden. If the compromise in question is enough to appeal to a critical mass of the Senate, it'll happen. If not, they'll have to compromise with the President instead. It might require fine-tuning, but the system I've described (or tried to describe) doesn't allow him to partial-pass without Congress getting its say beforehand.

Let's say the Republicans want A and the Democrats want B, and everyone pretty much agrees passing AB would be an improvement over the status quo. Both proposals have 55% support in both houses (so a filibuster could kill either one). They pass AB with a healthy margin. Democratic President vetoes A. Since it takes 2/3 to override, only B is passed. Yay for the Dems! Except AB would never have gotten through Congress in the first place because of this reason, so no B either.

Yes, there would be compromises that would pass. Yes, the President could promise to pledge not to veto or something like that. But that's a huge wad of institutional resistance in an institution that already moves extremely slowly. So we add all this resistance just to eliminate maybe $20 billion in spending. Yeah, not a fan...

[Kuciwalker]

Incidentally, state governments obviously are significantly smaller than the national government (since states can't borrow, among other reasons).

Oh? Really? I'm pretty sure the Virginia legislature would be fascinated to hear that.

[Kuciwalker]

Rather than hypothetical examples, you need to provide actual evidence that the line item veto has been more harmful than helpful to state politics.

[Ramo]

Oh? Really? I'm pretty sure the Virginia legislature would be fascinated to hear that.

Look at the debts for state governments. Much smaller than federal debt.

[Ramo]

Rather than hypothetical examples, you need to provide actual evidence that the line item veto has been more harmful than helpful to state politics.

What would "actual evidence" look like? My argument is that it would obviously slow down the legislative process, and I think that's a bad idea.

But if you want a really dysfunctional example of a line item veto's influence in state politics, look at Wisconsin up until a year or so ago (afterwards, the veto power was somewhat less ridiculous).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Look at the debts for state governments. Much smaller than federal debt.

There's a world of difference between that and "states can't borrow".

[Ramo]

That was shorthand for a much more limited ability to borrow. Obviously, they can borrow. Anyone can borrow. Just not necessarily very much.

[Kuciwalker]

It was an extraordinarily stupid shorthand.

[Ramo]

Sometimes I use hyperbole when the meaning's obvious. What crawled up your ass?

[Kuciwalker]

The meaning wasn't obvious. What you managed to communicate was "Ramo has no idea what he's talking about."

[Ramo]

If one interpretation makes no sense, and the other interpretation relies on a common colloquialism, the choice is pretty obvious. This is almost as bad as Sloww arguing with me that the Dems were not literally purged in the South in '94.