|
|
#41
03-07-2006, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hygienic
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a good strategic move on behalf of the Bush adminstration. [/ QUOTE ] I wish we did less things that were on behalf of the administration and more things that were on behalf of this country's residents. 
|
|
#42
03-07-2006, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hygienic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think this is a good strategic move on behalf of the Bush adminstration. [/ QUOTE ] I wish we did less things that were on behalf of the administration and more things that were on behalf of this country's residents. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not quite sure who the "we" is you're reffering to here, but the "we" who acts on behalf of President Bush also likely (and sincerely) believes that President Bush acts on behalf of this country's residents.
|
|
#43
03-07-2006, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hygienic
FWIW:
Line Item Vetoes Won't Cut Spending [ QUOTE ] Bush is asking for this authority, but it is unlikely to constrain spending. Read this (JSTOR) paper "Line-Item Veto: Where Is Thy Sting?". Excerpt: "Curiously, there exists little empirical support for the presumption that item-veto authority is important." [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#44
03-07-2006, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hygienic
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW: Line Item Vetoes Won't Cut Spending [ QUOTE ] Bush is asking for this authority, but it is unlikely to constrain spending. Read this (JSTOR) paper "Line-Item Veto: Where Is Thy Sting?". Excerpt: "Curiously, there exists little empirical support for the presumption that item-veto authority is important." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The blog has a nice quote from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who seemed to win glowing praise from all sides during his tenure as head of the CBO: "Governors in 43 states [circa 1992] have the power to remove or reduce particular items that are enacted by state legislatures. The evidence from studies of the use of the item veto by the states, however, indicates no support for the assertion that it has been used to reduce state spending."
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
