From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Dump the Democratic Congress( was Re: The end of the Reagan Era)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:20:05 GMT

(David Veal) writes:
>(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>(Joe Collins) writes:
>>>(Doug Andersen) writes:
>>>>(Joe Collins) writes:
>>>>> Lets not forget that the (democratically-controlled) Congress has to
>>>>> approve ALL spending, revenue-raising, taxes. The President has no
>>>>> power to spend money unless Congress gives it to him. Only the Congress
>>>>> can borrow money and go into debt. Its in the Constitution (Article 1, 
>>>>> sections 7,8).
>>>> 
>>>>Ever hear of the veto?  If Bush had had more than 1 veto overturned he
>>>>might have a case.  But it's clear that he agreed to the budget
>>>>compromises.  If he didn't veto the spending bills he's just as
>>>>responsible as Congress.
>>
>>>Bush has screwed on those compromises but again, Congress can absolutely 
>>>override him. So the President has the veto power and Congress can
>>>override it if they can muster the votes. But only Congress has the
>>>authority to raise taxes, raise the debt, spend money, etc. - The
>>>President does not have that power.
>>
>>And how many times has the Congress been able to override a
>>Presidential veto in the past four years?  *ONCE*, and *NEVER* on a
>>spending bill, tax bill, or tax bill.  So tell me again about how it
>>isn't Bush's fault, won't you?
>
>     How many vetoes in four years?  Thirty seven?  Out of how many hundreds 
>(thousands) of bills?
>
>     It sounds like the problem here is that Bush failed to stand up to 
>Congress.  And while that is certainly a reason not to re-elect Bush, it
>certainly places plenty of blame on Congress.
>     Bush is partially to blame.  Wholly to blame (as Clinton would have it)
>or totally blameless (as Bush would have it) certainly not.

All the wrangling back and forth on this (and David Veal is pretty much
right about it), begs one great big question.

If people are wanting "change" and want new leadership in Washington,
are they going to do the responsible thing and dump their
Democratic Congressmen and Senators, so the leadership of the Congress
will change?

We've had many scandals in Congress - House bank, House post office -
plus a lot of whitewashing of Congressional misdeeds.
Also there is extreme partisanship from the majority,
so much so that it is virtually impossible for someone
in the minority party, ie, the Republican party, to bring an item
(bill or Amendment) to a House vote.

The Democrat majority party in Congress,
also shares the blame for failing to act with an economic recovery
program. Rather than creating a compromise between what they wanted and
what the President wanted, they *deliberately* put in "veto-bait"
in the form of "soak-the-rich" tax increases that they knew Bush would
veto. Bush's plea at the State of the Union address, to have them pass
his proposals by March 20th went unheeded, as the Democrats passed
their own tax increase and even refused to allow Bush's proposals to come
to a vote in the House. They put partisanship above the country's
interest, knowing cynically that the President would take the heat
for "failing to act" (by vetoing a bad bill).

We have an entrenched imperial Congress.  It is against term limits,
refuses to vote on the line-item veto, fought off the Balanced Budget
Amendment. It refuses to tighten its belt, passing ever larger budgets,
with an ever-expanding network of Congressional staffers who dedication
is not to the country but the incumbency of their boss.

So what do you say? Are we going to dump the Democratic Congress?

Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15476 alt.politics.clinton:8885 talk.politics.misc:50047