From: dano@srl01.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Presidential predictions Re: Perot?
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:57:18 GMT

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_!

If George Bush actually proposed such a bill, he would be crucified for
cutting all those social programs that enable Democrats to get
reelected and farm subsidies that get Republican farm-state congressmen
reelected.

Also, if he simply refused to sign any budget that did not balance,
the Congress would (eventually) override his veto.

Also, SUPPOSEDLY, the budget plan will be fully balanced by the year
1996 or something like that.  I doubt it.

>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!

Verily, Congressmen are pretty spineless.

>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!!

Well, the Congress defeated the Balanced Budget Amendment.  It would
have been a good way to balance the budget, for sure.  And that way
George Bush could 'get away' with throwing out non-balanced budgets
due to their non-Constitutionality.    Even though it won the
majority of votes, 2/3 (I think) are needed to get an Amendment going.

>>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...

This may be true.  I suppose it may be more powerful in the hands of a
Republican President vetoing Democrat's legilative garbage, as oppesed
to a 'Yes-Man' approach (presumably) from a Democrat President.

>>
>>
>>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
>Presidential palace anyway...



No conspiracies, PLEASE! 
>simpleton the likes of Dan Quayle could assume the Presidency?
>(note NO smiley here!!)

>	Dave Scharfe

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

>Microsoft WinBlows... holding back science, and the sole reason Mankind
>   has yet to achieve interstellar travel...
>MacIntosh... rotten to the core, and overpriced because of those
>   goddamn farm subsidies!
>Next...  what's next?
>Atari...  wait, isn't that a great game machine?

>Amiga...  the computer for the creative mind!

>There!  Now don't complain about the irrelevence of my post :^)
--
Dan Stephenson|das9674@usl.edu masres10@ucs.usl.edu dano@srl01.cacs.usl.edu
Come all of you you/Who are not satisfied/As rulers in a lone wall/
papered room/Full of mute bird and flowers that /Falsely bloom/And
closets choked with dreams that long ago died,... --Judy Collins