As a true fiscal conservative, I believe as most reasonable people would, that our President, regardless of party affiliation, needs to have the power and authority for a "true" line item veto on appropriations issues.  Such a power must be limited to appropriations issues only, and Congress must have the means to redress any veto.


This law is necessary because Congress has routinely and overtly abused it's constitutional power for appropriations, is fiscally irresponsible, is wasting tax-payer dollars, has damaged our children and grand-children's futures by strapping them with high taxation without representation and no benefit, is purposefully and malishiously deflating the American dollar which is a hidden tax on all Americans, has deliberately created a debt-burden on Americans that has the real potential for destroying America and all that was good about it.  


There is no hope in sight that Congress would ever give up such abuse even if it means the certain financial destruction of the United States of America, and it is now for the American people to restrain Congress by force of law.


Presidents from both major affiliations have asked Congress for this authority and Congress has repeatedly denied it.  They deny it for votes and campaign contributions.  However. they claim that it gives the President too much power.  But that argument only holds up when not examined.


Resolving this one issue would do more to help the country by:

    1. promoting fiscal restraint and helping both the President and Congress to achieve fiscal responsibility, and

    2. forcing Presidents to be more answerable to the people for the legislation they sign into law, and

    3. forcing corrupted politicians to bring irresponsible spending and pork into the daylight for all to examine and debate,  and

    4. helping eliminate Congresses persistent immoral and unethical deceit from adding unpopular, and generally un-needed, last minute amendments, to popular and needed bills, and

    5. preventing politicians from skewing the truth in regards to other politicians voting records by forcing them to vote for bills contained otherwise objectional spending, and

    6.  allowing the government to NOT have to be shut down when a President is forced to veto an entire appropriations bill because it's objectional, and

    7. forcing Congress and the President to consider every bill on it's merits without having issues of conscience and conflict of interest over voting for, or signing into law, bills containing unrelated hidden issues, and

    8.  forcing our politicians at the federal level, to consider America first, over the tempations and pressures of lobbyists thereby fostering the restoration of the public trust and honor in serving, and

   9. lowering the burden on tax payers and businesses, and

  10. strengthening America's overall wealth, standard of living, and economy by having ample financial reserves and capacity, and

  11. reducing and/or eliminating America's debt reliance on China and other foreign countries, and

  12. allowing more flexibility to deal with economic catastrophes as they happen, and

  13. allowing voters the ability to gauge a politician based on their "true" voting record, and

  14. reducing political advertising distorting other politicians records, and

  15. forcing Congress to reduce the bickering and get along with each other, by eliminating some contentious issues inserted into legislation, and

  16. increasing America's favorability about Congress and our elected officials, and


  17. providing a more focused debate, and

  18.  forcing Congress to actually work, and work together, and ...much more.


There are no real downsides to a line item veto.  There's nothing but positives for a fiscally strong America and every American no matter their party affiliation.  Everybody wins!


This one power would allow more fiscal balance between the office of the President and the Congress.  It would force fiscally irresponsible politicians to be more answerable to the American public, and their constituents, as a whole.  The only negative effect is upon those corrupted politicians who would sacrifice America in order to garner a few personal favors and campaign contributions from a few corrupted people. 


A Line Item Veto would not:

  1.  prevent Congress from spending on any issue, pork included, and

  2.  prevent Congress from introducing legislation of any kind, and

  3.  prevent Congress from re-introducing Presidentially vetoed items for debate and passage, and

  4.  prevent Congress from overriding a Presidential veto, and

  5.  prevent our elected officials, should they still choose to do so, from being bad Americans, working against the greater good of America, and being scoundrels, which shame us all.  They can still do all this, but have to do it in the sunshine and not the dead of night.



Constitutional Admendment Needed?

I highly doubt that a bill could be passed without challenge as to it's constitutional correctness.  Therefore, I would support pushing for a new admendment to the Constitution supporting a line item veto for appropriations.  I would probably not support an adment for a line item veto of non-fiscal issues as that could be abused by future Presidents and provides too much power.


Here's my suggestion:

That we, as Americans who believe in restoring fiscal responsibility, honor, and sanity to our government, make a master-list all politicians who advocate against a line item veto and who have previously voted against a line item veto and that we cast them out, plain and simple. 


In my mind, politicians who stand against a line item veto are necessarily in favor of fiscal irresponsibility.


And that we move to elect candidates who will pledge, in writing and in public, to sponsor and support a line item veto bill should they be elected, and aggressively pursue it's passage as their "top" legislative priority.  And any who change their mind find themselves unelectable.


That we promote by means of the media, a negative public awareness of such fiscally irresponsible people and outline the actual harm they bring and have brought to America by exposing their tactics to public sunshine, and


In this effort:

I am advocating that we form a Tea Party National Task Force dedicated specifically to this issue to bring a laser focus on the topic.  We need one committee with this one, and only this one, agenda.


We should force all politicians whether they're incumbents, established, or a new candidate, to decide the issue publically, and up-front.


And that we create a national list of voters of all affiliations who agree to vote and to commit to vote for fiscally responsible candidates regardless of party who will push for a Line Item Veto.



The Danger As I See It:

I for one, am a staunch fiscal conservative, but also socially liberal.  Others may be social conservatives by whatever definition they adhere to, and there are many definitions as far as I can tell. 


Social viewpoints contain the seed of defeat for this agenda by associating it with and asserting their non-fiscally related social viewpoints. 


Social viewpoints have to be restrained by those who care about this issue in order to create wide alliances amongst all Americans regardless of the party they favor, or their social outlook. 


There are many positive reasons why members of any political affiliation would support this effort as long as they're not put off by people with an unrelated social perspective and agenda. 


Therefore, part of this committee’s platform needs to address this concern so that it's comfortable for all to participate.  Passage of such a constitutional admendment has to be the primary goal and the committe need to stay pure to that effort.   It will likely be non-affilated independents who will decide which candidates that progress to leadership and therefore whether we get an admendment, and they are generally turned off from the infighting from non-related issues. 


I mention this because I have seen how a great movement like the Tea Party movement has been derailed in many cases by those with a non-fiscally related social agenda. 


So how do we do this?  How do we effectively get this started?


Mack M.










Views: 14

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am on the same boat as you are. This is a national issue and cause for several decades. I believe that the quickest way to resolve the issue is for proper legislation and congressman to change how Washington works. As for now we are quite simply working on getting those right people into the positions to make it happen. We can have a half a million people in Washington month after month shouting at the legislation however if Capital hill is full of progressive snakes than we are simply wasting our time.

Step 1: Get fiscally conservative congress into office
Step 2: Garnish support from conservative dems. (kinda like fairy tale creatures )
Step 3: Pass actual legislation and not piles of earmarks or subsidization.
Step 4: Heat on High for 30 minutes and serve hot... (Ok, I stole that one from Jay Ledbetter : ))


Reply to Discussion


© 2023   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service