About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, September 19, 2008 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not voting as I'm not sure on some of these items.

I've heard several libertarian jurists argue against a line item veto. It seems like a great idea to me. What are the negatives?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, September 19, 2008 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The arguments I've heard against the Line-Item veto are:
1) It violates the separation of powers by giving the administration what amounts to the ability to modify legislation when the constitution only gives the right to sign, pocket, or veto.
2) It could easily be abused to pass a law that does not resemble what was sent to him and to do so in an impartial fashion - striking lines to punish some legislatures and not others.
3) It violates the presentment clause of the constitution which holds that congress presents a bill, complete in its entirety, to the president. Not a very different argument from #1.
---------------

I favor it just because spending is so out of control that I'd accept the down-side and dangers as being less. (But I think a balanced budget constitutional amendment would be much better - more to the point).
--------------

It has been shot down by the supreme court (Clinton had it for a while, Rudy Giuliani filed the suit that shot it down) so it now can only be enacted with a constitutional amendment. The proposal for an amendment would allow for a 2/3 vote by congress to over-ride any line-item vetos as a control on its abuse.
--------------

A fellow from CATO testified before congress in it's favor and that text can be seen here: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm032300.html

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, September 19, 2008 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted "End Welfare & Subsidies" in light of the current bailout of stupid rich people that will cost the rest of us for many generations.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Run-Off Pres. Election: You mean Instant-runoff voting? That would be awesome. Then people could vote for who they want to win!

Line Item Veto: Yea that makes sense to be able to reject/accept individual propositions.

End Welfare & Subsidies: Done.

Deregulate Drugs/Biotech: Yes please. People should be responsible for themselves, boo nanny state.

Privatize Social Security: Definitely. I like the solution where we pay back the people who have contributed, and immediately discontinue further payments.

Adopt Gold Standard: I like unbacked controlled units in circulation money supply. I do not like the idea of a gold standard. In the unbacked controlled money supply, I'd prefer that there was minimum expansion of total monetary units in circulation (aka low inflation rate using my preferred definition) and this implies the Fed doesn't loan money.

Balanced Budget Amendment: The one I voted for in this poll, since its kind of a conglomeration of improvements needed to make the budget balanced.

Repeal Income Tax: I'd minimize the income tax. I'd only repeal it if the federal government's budget was so low that this was possible. Potentially the fed could be funded on increasing the money supply alone.

Require Strict War Declaration: Yea, a better identification of when to go to war and whether we are at war, and what the goal of a war is would be great!

Withdraw from UN: Can't say I know too much about the UN

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted for run-off elections as the best solution to all of our problems.

You could argue against that by saying that bipartisanship isn't the biggest problem (even if it is the best solution). I got wind of the idea of being solution-focused rather than problem-focused (comparing alternatives based on the best solutions, rather than on the size of the problem) from Bjorn Lomborg, head of that Copenhagen Consensus place. I picked up the book Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems. It's utilitarian, but I found it useful, nonetheless.

Basically, if we had run-off elections, then all of our problems would eventually go away (because leaders would get their feet held to the fire more). Like Ron Paul, I see bipartisanship as being our chief means of perpetuated evil in this country (though it's not, in-and-of-itself, inherently evil).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/20, 6:03pm)


Post 5

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 12:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Repeal Income Tax: I'd minimize the income tax. I'd only repeal it if the federal government's budget was so low that this was possible. Potentially the fed could be funded on increasing the money supply alone."

The federal budget will never be so low that repeal is possible -- you'd have to be impossibly naive to think Congress would generate such huge budget surpluses voluntarily. Congress will always spend as much money as they can extract from us, and usually quite a bit more. So, repeal the bloody thing, and force them to cut spending quite a bit.

Or are you saying that you think it's not possible to run a strictly constitutional government without the income tax? My contention is that passage of the constitutional amendment allowing the income tax has resulted in much of the shredding of the rest of the constitution that has transpired.

Plenty of other items in this checklist that are great ideas, but I think the income tax repeal would have the greatest effect on producing limited government.

Post 6

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 5:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim Henshaw,

Oh, I was assuming I'd be benevolent US dictator, not US President.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 9/21, 5:29am)


Post 7

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 6:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So far, I'm the only one who voted for run-offs. You guys are ranking the problems from littlest to biggest (and choosing the biggest problem), instead of ranking the solutions from best to worst -- and choosing the best solution.

Do many of you get what I'm saying, though?

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 6:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted drug deregulation. The drug war costs over $100B per year at the federal, state and local level - not to mention lost tax revenue. Then, imagine the benefit to the economy of an unregulated pharmaceutical and health industry! We could afford to bail out the banks on a yearly basis.

Post 9

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 11:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Bravo! When I saw the drug deregulation thing, all I could think was, "That's dumb - who would put getting the right to legally get high in the same category as these other political reforms?" But your explanation is great! Sometimes it is too easy to be blind to what could be.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Much that is done unconstitutionally in the US domestically is done in the name of the war on drugs. Improper police powers flow from the drug war. A very large proportion of those in prison are there for this cause. The criminalization of the culture, gang wars and gangster rap flows from this. And our relations with the corrupted nations of Latin America are soured by the drug war, which allows the communists to flourish in lands which we impoverish in the name of prohibition. Mexico and Columbia are helped to stay third world nations due to our incontinence.

And none of this addresses our pharmaceutical industries, which drive the world economy, and bring us unprecedented health and happiness while suffering under a huge burden. Consider the taxes and regulations which hobble the pharmaceutical companies - compared to the total lack of burden applied to the entertainment industry. Would hollywood be so liberal and clueless if it were taxed and regulated like drug companies and health-care providers?

In fact, of the alternatives listed, I would most prefer adopting the gold standardd, to get the economy out of the hands of the state. But as a wealth creating option, none beats the deregulation of the drug and healthcare industries.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted for ending the war on drugs, 'cause that's where human beings get killed. Everything else can wait, but if you're dead, you're dead.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.