From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Presidential predictions Re: Perot?
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:44:01 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <Brsp87.209@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
> In article <dano.711761245@srl01> dano@srl01.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson) writes:
> >[deleted]  Their 'CHANGE change CHANGE
> >change CHANGE change CHANGE!' fanaticism will be turned on the Congress
> >once they've been told the truth that the Congress is _the_ source of
> >legislation in the U.S..  Not George Bush.  He *executes* the laws the
> >Congress passes and he signs.  George Bush has no direct control over
> >what money gets spent, raising taxes, regulations, etc.
>
> This is a common cop-out espoused by Republicans.  While Congress is
> indeed a serious problem, I really would like to see a President who
> has the nerve to VETO any budget proposal which is _not_balanced_!
>

FYI:  Bush vetoed the congressional budget 3 times and allowed the
government to go into sequester 3 times in 1990.  If you think
Bush has no feelings for hurting Americans, you should stop and
realize that he comprimised his no-new-taxes pledge to keep welfare
money and unemployment compensation alive.  The sequesters were
direct results of the Graham/Rudman Act, which congress conveniently
extended the deadline for (i.e. don't follow their own Rules).  As
part of Bush's comprimise, a clear set of rules on how moneys
are to be allocated by congress were made.  And Bush vetoed
30+ times (never an override) budget-busting bills.

The president does present a budget proposal to congress, which
Bush has done every year.  He just put everything everyone wanted
to spend in and left it to congress, where the constitutional
mandate to authorize the spending was, to make the needed cuts.
Call it exposing the spenders for what they are.

> It may be naive of me to believe it, but I still think that Perot
> might actually have the audacity to do such a thing...
>

Naive, perhaps.  However, to submit a balanced budget in the next
20 years would trigger a worldwide depression like the world has
never seen.  Getting the budget balanced will take a gradual
process, a year at a time.

> >[deleted]    What is a president to do? simply prevent the government
> >from running?
>
> Simply, yes.  You want to talk about breaking a gridlock in Congress?
> Stop their paychecks!  Stop all government paychecks!  Then, you will
> see ACTION out of the Congress which you never BELIEVED possible!
>

Stop the paychecks to lots of poor people who need the money.  Stop the
paychecks to the homeless who are getting a paltry $340 per month as
it is (at least they get that here in California).  Stop the paychecks
to big companies who hire millions of people.  Stop the paychecks to
millions of unemployed.  That would be cruel and heartless.

> When they inevitably overrode the veto in favor of further deficit
> spending, they would do so with Republican complicity.  Rather
> than doing nothing and pointing fingers at one another, the stooges
> would have to ANSWER TO THE VOTERS!!
>

There was no override possible.  Rather than doing nothing and pointing
fingers at one another, Bush invited bipartisan leaders of the house
and senate to the white house to hammer out a comprimise.  Bush agreed
to not speak about capital gains tax cuts (to help every homeowner in
America come retirement age) for a year.  In return, congress agreed
to cap spending, except in emergency conditions.  Unfortunately, those
emergency conditions included the gulf war and two consecutive quarters
of negative or no growth.

> >that there would be NO 'gridlock' if the Congress didn't keep preventing
> >his *proposals* from going through (and then, of course, they slam him
> >for 'inaction') and if George Bush had line-item veto powers (like many
> >governors do)
>
> The line item veto, proposed by so many, have its negative aspects
> also.  In your post, you correctly explain that the Executive is to
> *enforce* the laws.  The line item veto, in my opinion, gives the
> President too much influence in *making* the laws...
>

Let's look at a concrete example of how the line item veto could have
worked.  In January, Bush made his state of the Union speech and proposed
a very specific 7-point economic growth package.  He dared congress to
pass his package by March 20.  Come March 7, congress had agreed to pass
6 of the 7 points but also were talking about adding a soak the rich tax
to the package.  Bush used the exact kind of influence you fear - he
promised to veto the bill because of the soak the rich tax.  For two
weeks, congress knew Bush would veto his own 6 points if the tax was
present.  Yet they passed the bill that way anyhow and it was indeed
vetoed.  The override vote got less than 50% (67% was required to
override).  Now, given the line-item veto, Bush would have vetoed
the soak the rich tax and signed the 6 points that EVERYONE agreed
would help the country.  Congress could override the line-item
veto, but the soak the rich tax would not stand on its own merits.

Is congress really interested in helping the country?  Or are they
more interested in damaging the nation (they ARE that desparate)
to hurt Bush in the polls?  If they are interested in helping
the country, they pass a 6 point growth package AND a soak the
rich tax.  That way, the country is guaranteed to be helped.
And if the 6-point plan fails, blame Bush because it was HIS
plan.

> >
> >My Popular vote predictions:
> >
> >George Bush:  55%
> >Bill Clinton: 35%
> >Ross Perot:   10%
> >
> >Indeed, I do think Ross Perot _will_ get such a large percentage.
>
> I hope it's a lot more than that (say, 65% :^)).  Of course, were it
> so, old H. Ross probably wouldn't live long enough to move into the
> Presidential palace anyway...
>

Paranoia.  I gave Perot 30% of the vote, whether he is IN or not.  To
indicate how significant that is, the most votes ANY 3rd party candidate
has gotten in this century is 12% (Teddy Roosevelt).

People - if you want to vote for change, vote out ALL incumbents at ALL
levels of government.  Choose the Libertarian candidate for President.
Get rid of congress is the first priority.


> Speaking of not living long enough, who could _seriously_ advocate
> a ticket wherein there is even the remotest possibility that a
> simpleton the likes of Dan Quayle could assume the Presidency?
> (note NO smiley here!!)
>

Trivia:  Who is the only incumbent VP to run for president and WIN
when his president left office?  Answer: George Bush.  So what
does that say about Dan Quayle?  It says that Bush didn't pick his
friend Jim Baker so Baker could do something USEFUL as Secy of State
and have a much better chance to WIN as president in 1996.

> 	Dave Scharfe
>
> P.S.  Hmm... Amiga advocacy, lets see...
>


--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy