Balanced budget, line-item veto; 80s ideas, with less chance of success than ‘Roseanne’

in the vicinity


Steven Mnuchin talks trade war fears, the stock market tremors

Finance Minister weighs in on President Trump the tariffs, threats of a trade war, and falls in the stock market.

You want to get back your ‘ 80s.

“Roseanne” is back on the air with the smashing reviews. “Ready Player One” is on the big screen. It is a tribute to the 80s video. 1980s cinema virtuoso beyond the film with Easter eggs from the decade. And the Republican party, and campaigned for a constitutional balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto for the President of the United States.

All that’s missing are Bonnie Tyler and Alf.

President Trump was on the verge of a stroke, avert, if the Congress delivered the spending 1.3 trillion-Dollar bill on his Desk, with a government shutdown last week. He immediately called for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto.

A balanced budget amendment is just that. It no longer requires the government to spend as it takes in every year. You have heard, the sequestration, the mandatory spending of the US caps Congress had in 2011?

A balanced budget sequestration amp would be up on a cocktail of anabolic steroids, and the fiscal year of fentanyl. And the Congress and the States would have to amend the Constitution, the imposition of such discipline.

The line-item veto is a tool that state legislators granted by 44 governors. The line-item-veto allowed to analyse the Executive, invoices, approved by the legislature and the fillet of “lines,” or places to which such governors do not agree. The Governor under the bill writes into law. But the portions shaved away by the Executive to drop by the wayside and not law, a victim of the “line-item veto.”

Most of the state boards, be you Governor or the U.S. President, love the idea of the line-item veto. The concept poaches power of the legislature and strengthens the arsenal of the Executive branch.

It is not clear why Trump wants a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto.

The massive omnibus spending bill Congress gave him was earlier this month, messy, and inelegant. Most of the big spending bills. Trump didn’t like the price tag.

And it is pushing large policy to “balance the budget.” The President would like to initiatives of a line-item veto, cancel Democratic priorities included in the spending package, while maintaining the GOP.

The balanced budget amendment and line-item-veto-ideas caught fire politically in the 1980s. But to believe, to secure that Trump has a real chance, either tool will appear folly.

You start with the balanced budget amendment.

To change the Constitution a vote of three-quarters of the States (38), and two-thirds of the house of representatives and the Senate (290 Yes-in the house, and 67 ayes in the Senate). It is an extremely high bar. There is a reason why people have proposed only 33 amendments to the Constitution since the beginning of the Republic. Advocates have managed to amend the Constitution only 27 times.

It will take a Herculean task to execute an amendment to the Constitution. But the consequences of a balanced budget amendment are even strong.

The phrase “steep, Draconian cuts” are not appropriate to the size of the mandatory spending cuts characterize mandated a balanced budget amendment. We’re talking caves of spending cuts, the size of the Mariana trench or Challenger Deep.

The great defense of the President increase trumpeted? Wiped out. Accounting for more than 50 percent of all discretionary spending (annual appropriations designated Congress), the Pentagon has the most to lose.

If you are going to slash spending to comply with balanced budget amendment, sure, you can pare back the spending for the departments of the Interior or education. But the money allocated to a sliver of the price received by the military. So the Pentagon carries much of the load.

Then there are entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We mentioned “discretionary spending?” Only about 30 percent of all state spending.

The government is dedicated to receiving the rest. Remember, the Mariana Trench, Challenger deep? These chasms can only outraged the places on earth that the Republicans could find refuge from the angry Mob of citizens that you have lost your Medicare.

The Republicans long as he is in favour of the power of the legislature to combat the alleged Executive abuse carried out by former President Barack Obama. The Constitution grants Congress the ultimate power of the purse under article I, § § 7 & 9. A balanced budget amendment would strip some of that authority from the legislature.

The house is planning a vote in the coming weeks on a balanced budget amendment. It can be a fabulous policy. But the operational conditions that are impractical.

Never mind that the legislature approved a broad two-year budget framework, expenditure contours in February. A vote on a balanced budget amendment flies in the face of the accord. In this case, such a change is nothing more than an offensive, roll-call-vote against political enemies.

It is inappropriate to vote for a balanced budget amendment, the spending deal last week, and the February contract. But some Republicans may be trying to say something else.

Now to the line-item veto.

Minister of Finance, Steve Mnuchin bad of a method botched to impose a line-item veto. During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Mnuchin argued, it would be easy for Congress to “pass a rule” and, voila, the President could have sent the invalidity of individual provisions in the legislation to him by the Congress.

In fact, the introduction of a line-item veto can also mean a change in the basic law.

Congress, led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and now the Director of National Intelligence, and former sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., then-President Bill Clinton issued a line-item veto.

But in the 1998 decision, Clinton v. New York, decided by the Supreme court of justice of the gambit is unconstitutional. One Problem is the transmission of the “power of the purse” of the Legislative on the Executive power dictated that, in accordance with article 1, sections 7 & 9.

However, the Supreme court, such a decided veto against the “presentment clause” of the Constitution. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution for the Congress “presents” bills to the President for his signature or veto. The Constitution requires that the house and Senate, you must submit your bills and the legislation, as one, to the President for his blessing or rejection.

In other words, the constitutional Congress to direct the law granted legislative authority under article I. If the President does not like what the Congress “presented” to him, it is take it or leave it. The President can not “some” or “get something from him.”

So, line-item-veto would have been in favour to change the Constitution. Do not forget how congressional Republicans were drawn up, on the exercise of its legislative powers under article I. the Congress waive the considerable power of the Executive under a line-item veto.

Neither the balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto, are new ideas. They gained currency in the 1980s. President Trump wants to both instruments. But this gambit may be an amendment to the Constitution.

You want your 80s back

For changes of this order of magnitude, perhaps you should have started in the 1780s.


Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular