From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Control vs *Control* of Congress (was Why we should blame Democrats)
Summary: there's control, and there's veto-proof control
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:36:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>While I am not sure if I will vote for Bush/Quayle, I will certainly
>NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON/GORE. I happen to like Bill Clinton as a person
>but the Democrats have wreaked financial havoc with our lives and those
>of our children.

This is news to me.

>Its really simple:

It is?  I'll bet it isn't.  Whenever somebody says "It's really
simple", and they're talking about politics or economics, bells and
whistles should go off in your head.  Maybe little voices, too. :-)

>For 50 of the last 60 years, the Democrats have controlled the Senate.
>For 56 of the last 60 years, the Democrats have controlled the House
> of Representatives.
>
>[The above was said by Ronald Reagan - perhaps the numbers are off but 
> the spirit is certainly true...]

I don't believe in "the spirit" in reference to the numbers, so I checked.
The *real* numbers are this:

For 44 of the last 60 years, Democrats have had a majority in the Senate.
For 56 of the last 60 years, Democrats have had a majority in the House.

I put the emphasis on "majority" because, as we all know, it takes a
2/3 vote of both houses to over-ride a presidential veto.  How often
have the Democrats had that kind of *control*?  Not often.  A total of
6 years in these 60: 1935-1939 and 1965-1967.  Not coincidentally, these
were also times of Democratic control of the presidency, which makes
the veto issue less important but which undoubtedly made it easier for
the party in power to do whatever it wanted.

>Excerpts from the Constitution of the United States:
> [deleted, jking]
>
>Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President has the 
>authority to spend money, borrow money or raise taxes.

No, but he certainly can ask them to do these things, and they often
do it.  Sometimes they'll do things that the president asks even if
the president's party doesn't control the Congress, as happened in the
early 80s when the Republicans enjoyed an actual majority in the Senate
and a "working majority" in the house.  I'm a bit surprised that Reagan
forgot to mention that. :-)

>So we cannot fully blame the President for the deficit (except perhaps 
>for his lack of powers of persuasion on the tax/spend Congress). 

Or for his unwillingness to veto legislation.  (Which is precisely what
Governor Wilson did repeatedly to get the budget he wanted this year in
California.)

>But we can blame Congress for pork barrel legislation that the President
>can't stop since Congress will not give him the line-item veto, even though
>the vast majority of the Governors have it.

Uh, we're talking Constitutional ammendment here, no?  Congress can't grant
one of those unilaterally.

>How often do we hear of a Congressman/woman tacking on amendments to 
>important votes?  Thus they send to the President important legislation 
>that he wants and they add on all sorts of pet projects for themselves. 

Nit: lots of riders get tacked on that aren't budget items and would
thus be immune to many versions of the line item veto.

>He is forced to accept all that pork-barrel nonsense and sign the bill 
>or veto it and lose his legislation.

There *is* something to be said for principles, you know.  There is also
something to be said for vitriolic campaigning against big-time pork
offenders.  When was the last time Bush singled out a senator for his
a Particularly Porcine Procurement?

>Why don't we have term limits for Congressmen/women?
>Why don't we have Initiative, Referundum and Recall for Congressman/woman?

Because those, too, require constitutional ammendments.  (What's
Initiative and Referendum here?  If you're talking about a
California-style arrangement, can I try to talk you out of it?)

> [other stuff deleted]

>Joe
>joec@morgan.com
>Usual Disclaimers...

jking

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections