Your taxes at work

2007-12-20 21:53:07

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

I posted a link to this story in another thread. It is worthy of it's own topic though.

Earmarks fund birds, bees, birth, death

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_ … projects_1

$825,000 to expand the neonatal intensive care unit at St. Louis Children's Hospital, sponsored by Sen. Christopher Bond R-Mo.
$464,000 for hops research (Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Patty Murray, D-Wash., Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.).
$100,000 for the historic Mount Hope Cemetery in Rochester, N.Y. (Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.)This year's earmarks showed a special interest in animals — mostly pests, not pets. They include:
$705,000 for brown tree snake management in Guam (Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, Hawaii Democrats).
$213,000 for olive fruit fly study in France, and $535,000 for domestic olive fruit fly control (Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif.).
$2.2 million for Mormon cricket control, evenly divided between Nevada (Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.) and Utah (Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah).
$223,000 for beaver management in North Carolina (Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and Rep. David Price, D-N.C.),
$475,000 for beaver management in Mississippi (Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.).
$353,000 to combat Asian long-horned beetles (Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.).
$779,000 for wolf predation management in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan (Reps. James Oberstar, D-Minn., and David Obey, D-Wis.).
$332,000 for oyster post-harvest treatment (Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla.).
$244,000 for bee research in Texas (Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Tex.).
$513,000 for blackbird management in four states, sponsored by numerous lawmakers.

Without a line-item veto, Bush doesn't have a lot of good options to fight the 9,800 "special interest" earmarks he said were obtained by lawmakers for their states and districts.

Bush said Democratic leaders in Congress ran on a promise to curb earmarks and made some progress doing it.

"But they have not made enough progress," he said. "And so, I'm instructing budget director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan said Nussle will review options on spending but declined to speculate on what steps he would take, if any.

The line-item veto, a power enjoyed by most governors, would allow Bush to kill projects without having to veto an entire bill.

Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, briefly got to wield line-item vetoes in 1997, before the line-item veto law passed in 1996 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Clinton's first line-item vetoes so incensed Congress, he dialed back and wielded subsequent ones with a light hand. When the line-item veto law was declared void, his budget office almost seemed relieved.

Bush also could submit a bill to Congress asking lawmakers to rescind spending in the omnibus that he thinks is wasteful. But with opposition Democrats controlling Capitol Hill, such a measure would be dead on arrival.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 21:56:21

#2

Liberal-Sl@yer: Certified BF2S Asshole; +131|6893|The edge of sanity

Taxes are always spent in places they don't need to be. This is the folly of a bueracratic style budget and spending system.

2007-12-20 22:00:02

#3

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

So let's say Kerry in Florida doesn't want to pay 2.2 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada. Without line item veto the President has to approve it or toss the entire budget out.. Now that is jacked.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:01:10

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6842|North Carolina

Why not just give the president the ability to reject all riders? Riders are the part of the bill where these earmarks are usually written.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-20 22:01:24)

2007-12-20 22:02:12

#5

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Why not just give the president the ability to reject all riders? Riders are the part of the bill where these earmarks are usually written.

The Supreme court said it's unconstitutional. Congress retains the majority of the power with the check book. In fact that's where all their power is.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:07:24

#6

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6842|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Why not just give the president the ability to reject all riders? Riders are the part of the bill where these earmarks are usually written.
The Supreme court said it's unconstitutional. Congress retains the majority of the power with the check book. In fact that's where all their power is.

Having a line item veto is different from being able to eliminate riders. This kind of veto actually allows a president to alter the meaning of a bill. Eliminating riders just cuts the fat.

2007-12-20 22:13:21

#7

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Why not just give the president the ability to reject all riders? Riders are the part of the bill where these earmarks are usually written.
The Supreme court said it's unconstitutional. Congress retains the majority of the power with the check book. In fact that's where all their power is.
Having a line item veto is different from being able to eliminate riders. This kind of veto actually allows a president to alter the meaning of a bill. Eliminating riders just cuts the fat.

I've always seen them used back and forth.

An item veto gives the governor in most US states the power to strike out specific sections of an appropriations bill, while signing the remainder into law. Item vetoes allow the executive to keep a close control over financial legislation, cutting out riders, and reducing pork barrel legislation. The US President does not posses an item veto, although it has been frequently proposed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/line-item-veto

Semantics I guess.. you get the point.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:15:18

#8

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6842|North Carolina

I just prefer limiting this power to riders. I don't want the president to have the ability to change the meaning of a bill. I just want him/her to be able to remove crap like what you listed, which is almost always in the rider.

So, you could say I support a very limited line item veto.

2007-12-20 22:18:07

#9

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Well if the President adjust the bill maybe have it go back to Congress just to review that particular adjustment?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:22:50

#10

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6842|North Carolina

Eh... I think actual lawcrafting should remain the realm of the legislature. Eliminating riders is more like an executive "maintenance" activity. Riders are usually just Congress's way of getting bipartisan support for things, but it's still bullshit. This limited line item veto seems ideal to me, because it only encompasses what truly bugs me about our lawmaking process without interfering with the legislature's true purpose: lawmaking (as opposed to backscratching).

2007-12-20 22:25:56

#11

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

The whole process is just inefficient. In normal contracts if you have a problem with a particular section you discuss those details. There seems to be a big gaping void where compromise should exist.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:28:17

#12

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

Line item veto is a cool idea, however it's still prone to politics:
-What if Bush needs help on a bill and the Utah senator has promised Mormon cricket aid (BTW kills lots of crops in the "fertile crescent" of Nevada and Utah)...do they trade?

BTW I saw something on the news last night - Bush has gone to congress 45 times for more funding in Iraq...and gotten funding 45 times...not too many vetos (recent 7 GWB, 37 Clinton, Bush I 44, Reagan 78). Interesting when you think of approval rating...

2007-12-20 22:29:39

#13

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Solution: Stop giving these jokers your money.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:35:30

#14

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6842|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
The whole process is just inefficient. In normal contracts if you have a problem with a particular section you discuss those details. There seems to be a big gaping void where compromise should exist.

I think it's more reflective of the balance of powers in our government. The legislature makes laws, but the president decides if they become law or not. I don't think it would be a good idea to give the president what essentially amounts to the same powers as the legislature. In most governments, as the executive grows more powerful, individuals lose more rights. Venezuela is a good example of this.

2007-12-20 22:37:31

#15

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

Kmarion wrote:
Solution: Stop giving these jokers your money.

Political donations or taxes?

2007-12-20 22:40:40

#16

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Pug wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Solution: Stop giving these jokers your money.
Political donations or taxes?

I'd say both.

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
The whole process is just inefficient. In normal contracts if you have a problem with a particular section you discuss those details. There seems to be a big gaping void where compromise should exist.
I think it's more reflective of the balance of powers in our government. The legislature makes laws, but the president decides if they become law or not. I don't think it would be a good idea to give the president what essentially amounts to the same powers as the legislature. In most governments, as the executive grows more powerful, individuals lose more rights. Venezuela is a good example of this.

Close.. who picks the nominated supreme court justices? Last I heard they were the ones that struck down line item veto.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:42:40

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6842|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Pug wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Solution: Stop giving these jokers your money.
Political donations or taxes?
I'd say both.

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
The whole process is just inefficient. In normal contracts if you have a problem with a particular section you discuss those details. There seems to be a big gaping void where compromise should exist.
I think it's more reflective of the balance of powers in our government. The legislature makes laws, but the president decides if they become law or not. I don't think it would be a good idea to give the president what essentially amounts to the same powers as the legislature. In most governments, as the executive grows more powerful, individuals lose more rights. Venezuela is a good example of this.
Close.. who picks the nominated supreme court justices? Last I heard they were the ones that struck down line item veto.

How about this then?... What if we instead allowed the president to appoint Justices without the recourse of Congress? That might better balance things out.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-20 22:43:30)

2007-12-20 22:43:48

#18

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

Too bad we can't just vote on stuff like we do locally - "Local bond to be used to build an arena" or "Sales tax increase to get a better sea wall for hurricanes".

2007-12-20 22:47:21

#19

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Pug wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Solution: Stop giving these jokers your money.
Political donations or taxes?
I'd say both.

Turquoise wrote:

I think it's more reflective of the balance of powers in our government. The legislature makes laws, but the president decides if they become law or not. I don't think it would be a good idea to give the president what essentially amounts to the same powers as the legislature. In most governments, as the executive grows more powerful, individuals lose more rights. Venezuela is a good example of this.
Close.. who picks the nominated supreme court justices? Last I heard they were the ones that struck down line item veto.
How about this then?... What if we instead allowed the president to appoint Justices without the recourse of Congress? That might better balance things out.

I'm sticking with my plan of not giving them any money..lol. No matter what happens they will screw it up.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 22:53:38

#20

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

Kmarion wrote:
I'm sticking with my plan of not giving them any money..lol. No matter what happens they will screw it up.

Good luck, this week I helped a guy who hadn't filed a return since 1994. The IRS was about to seize his house and put a lien on his social security.

2007-12-20 22:56:37

#21

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Pug wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I'm sticking with my plan of not giving them any money..lol. No matter what happens they will screw it up.
Good luck, this week I helped a guy who hadn't filed a return since 1994. The IRS was about to seize his house and put a lien on his social security.

Go to the IRS site. They have like 100 million in returns to give back but they can't find the recipients..lol

http://www.irs.gov/

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 23:03:08

#22

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

Not really that much when you consider how much tax is actually collected.

I know from previous conversations with you K that you have investments. The investment firm reports the activity to the IRS. I hope you are joking because there's a trail...

2007-12-20 23:27:16

#23

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Pug wrote:
Not really that much when you consider how much tax is actually collected.

I know from previous conversations with you K that you have investments. The investment firm reports the activity to the IRS. I hope you are joking because there's a trail...

I was... I'm not that dumb. I've got too much to lose. I did get in trouble once because I didn't elctronically sign my e-file. They said they wouldn't be able to accept it the following year. They did anyways..lol.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-20 23:29:11

#24

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7199

Kmarion wrote:
I did get in trouble once because I didn't elctronically sign my e-file. They said they wouldn't be able to accept it the following year. They did anyways..lol.

lol..thought I was the only dumbass who did that once.

2007-12-20 23:34:57

#25

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7038|132 and Bush

usmarine2005 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I did get in trouble once because I didn't elctronically sign my e-file. They said they wouldn't be able to accept it the following year. They did anyways..lol.
lol..thought I was the only dumbass who did that once.

I have your IP addy. I'll turn states evidence if they ever come after me..lol

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums Your taxes at work

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer