[macintologist]

The Welfare State

26 pages of federal welfare is not my idea of freedom.

I'm having trouble deciding which programs are the most ridiculous or odd. Here are some contenders:

African Elephant Conservation Fund (along with conservation funds for Asian Elephants and Great Apes): Not that I have anything against apes or elephants, but to my knowledge these animals are not native to the United States, so I'm not sure why they're considered domestic assistance programs.

Closed-Circuit Televising of Child Victims of Abuse: I don't have the slightest idea what this entails, but it sounds really creepy. The kind of thing that would have SWAT beating down your door if you were to look for it on the internet yourself.

Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property: Isn't "federal personal property" a contradiction in terms?

National Prison Rape Statistics Program: Wow. Whatever bureaucrat is in charge of this program has the worst job I've ever heard of.

Of course this is not a complete list, but you get the point.

[Tuoder]

This is why they wanted the line-item veto.

[Millennium]

Would you trust Clinton with a line-item veto? Would you trust Bush with it?

I know I wouldn't have trusted either one of them with it, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. While it could be effective at trimming pork in the hands of a President committed to using it in that way and only that way, it's far too general of a solution: it concentrates too much power in one place without placing a check on that power.

Trimming pork is a very good goal, but this is not a good way to do it. We need to find other ways.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Closed-Circuit Televising of Child Victims of Abuse: I don't have the slightest idea what this entails, but it sounds really creepy. The kind of thing that would have SWAT beating down your door if you were to look for it on the internet yourself.

And here's where ignorance is very harmful. Your ignorance in particular.

This is a way of funding the rights of children to not have to be in the same room as the accused during court. In otherwords: children don't have to be in the same room as the person who abused them and they are not influenced by their presence during testimony.

This is a very good thing.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Would you trust Clinton with a line-item veto? Would you trust Bush with it?

I know I wouldn't have trusted either one of them with it, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. While it could be effective at trimming pork in the hands of a President committed to using it in that way and only that way, it's far too general of a solution: it concentrates too much power in one place without placing a check on that power.

Trimming pork is a very good goal, but this is not a good way to do it. We need to find other ways.

Well, it is not legal at a national level, so i suppose it is kind of a moot point, but no, I would not have trusted much of anybody with it in the long term. It would not take long for such a power to be abused. Perhaps if that power were checked with the ability of congress to pass the provision (now being voted upon all by itself) with a simple majority. Rider can be a real pain, and christmas tree bills cost this nation alot of money. I think that congress should have a check on their power to add little unrealted provisions to bills. But then, I would like it if certain members of congress did not have the ability to determine whether or not a bill can be amended, either.

In my vision, all bills could be amended, the president could line-item veto, and the congress would be able to pass those single provisions over a line-item veto with a simple majority. The court system would, of course retain the ability to interpret those laws and provisions and dtermine constitutionality.