Slashdot Mirror
HomeSec In the News
The U.S. Homeland Security bill is steamrolling through Congress, on target to be passed within a couple of days. Since its passage is guaranteed, in whatever form it finally ends up, lawmakers are attempting to tack on their own pet projects to the bill so they can ride its coattails. A CNet article mentions that a version of the Cyberspace Security Enhancement Act has been appended to the HomeSec bill. William Safire blasts the addition in the New York Times. The Times has another story on the bill that notes some of the corporate pork that is also being added to the bill.
MSNBC has a good article up about this"
A last-minute addition to a proposal for a Department of Homeland Security bill would punish malicious computer hackers with life in prison.
Yes. Adding ridiculous provisions to a bill is another way to stop it from passage. Add enough crap and when it comes up for final passage, it will be voted down because instead of a $200 million dollar bill its turned into a $2 Billion dollar bill.
The legislative system has many places like this where it is possible to destroy a bill. Remove it, and you give the majority more power in Congress.
That's not an example of line-item veto. The president wouldn't get veto per-ammendment, the veto would be by spending item. For example, if Congress passed an appropriation bill that's called "The Space Flight and Ketchup Act of 2002" and it went through Congress unammended with $500 million to NASA for the Space Shuttle project, and $100 million to the FDA for research on preserving ketchup better, the president could approve the money for NASA, but veto the FDA's project. Right now, the president would be faced with a double-or-nothing decision. This would only apply to bills where funds are going to more than one place, it would not allow him to do something like accept a copyright law but eliminate consumer protections.
The immediate problem with the line-item veto is that it is unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supremes get it right (6-3). :)
So of course it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment. This would be a grave error IMHO, as law-making authority belongs with the lawmakers, in Congress, not the White House, which has the veto as final sanity check on Congress (and over which the Framers pointedly permitted a 2/3 vote of Congress to override). A line-item veto would wreak havoc: the President would be able to "pass" a statute other than Congress intended (there's no reason the President would be limited to so-called pork -- why not dissect the statute's principal topic?). Why would anyone have this great faith in a single person to do the right thing -- Presidents engage in pork barrel politics, too, and surely we can all think of at least one President on the last thirty years we wouldn't have trusted with this.
If you have a problem with the lawmaking process, don't increase the power of a lone executive with whatever agenda; focus on the 535-member Congress, as the Framers intended. They did not want a monarch, or even an imitation one.
In fairness the debate on this is long and complex. I won't pretend to present or be able to present a full balanced picture. But grant that the issue is much more complex than a magic bullet for pork-barrel abuses, and look into it more than sound bites permit.
While the Homeland Security Bill is most certainly assured to pass now that the Republicans will control all of the 108th Congress (don't forget, its still the 107th, and the Dems still control the Senate) that doesn't mean all of the items being tacked on by the Senate will actually make it into law.
The House of Representatives already passed HR5005, the Homeland Security Bill, and did so with such tight rules that there was no chance for riders to be added. As such, when the conferees from the two houses to sit down and rectify the differences in the bill, the House will not have the pork that the Senate has... and I would go so far as to say that much of the pork will be stricken.
The computer hacking bill, on the other hand, has already passed the House. I was actually in the gallery at the time and watched the bill pass without a single objection. Even the floor leader managing the opposing side was in support of the bill. I don't know where "our" lobbyist was on this issue, but it was already decided long ago.
During the last few weeks of Congress there is a "great sucking sound". In other words, all of the bills that have been stuck in committee are suddenly tacked on to popular bills. Its been going on for years, and it is actually one of the few things that diminishes the power of the committee system, which in itself has some highly undemocratic practices. But that doesn't mean those items make it pass the conference committee.
Oh, and one last thing, about the line-item veto. Its not that the President's want it and didn't get it... Congress granted the power but the Courts ruled in unconstitutional because the President is not supposed to be vested with such power. If he did have that power, what would stop him from taking off items that would help members of the opposing party while keeping on items that help his own party? No, the power of the purse needs to stay in the hands of Congress. But we as voters need to stop rewarding Congressmen just because they send $50,000,000 toward our district.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
NEW HOMELAND SECURITY BILL DROPS INVESTIGATION INTO 9-11.
I guess we don't need to know what happened, just what we were told what happened by the president.
Hammer of Truth
> Remember, both Nixon and Clinton severely abused
> the IRS' power by auditing all their enemies.
Nixon maybe, Clinton no.
Remember, our country spent almost $70 million dollars and two independent councils with unlimited subpoena power to investigate Clinton, and the only thing they came up with was some fellatio. Bill and Hillary go down as the most heavily investigated couple in the history of the U.S., so unless you've got a real court conviction to back up your accusation (which would be an impeachable offense), then don't bother lumping him in with Nixon.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of bones to pick with Bob Barr, particularly when it came to the religious freedom of our Armed Forces. But I'm sad to see him go, because now we need privacy advocates more than ever before.
Finding God in a Dog