orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/07/85)
> >>. . . . the rampant fiscal irresponsibility > >>of the Reagan administration . . . . [Sevener] > > > >But isn't the legislative power, and therefore the fiscal responsibility, > >invested in Congress? The president, I believe, has no legislative power, > >except to veto bills originated by Congress. If my assumption is true, > >then to blame Reagan, Carter, or ANY president for economic conditions > >is misplacing the blame. (If my assumption is false, please refute it.) > >[Dave Kirby] > > Indeed, the "power of the purse" is vested in the House of > Representatives. (Please read the Constitution before arguing this > point.) Only the House may originate money bills. Such bills, of > course, must also be approved by the Senate and signed by the > President, but they *must* *start* in the House. If the House doesn't > vote to spend the money, the Senate and the President can't spend a > penny. > > If you want to curb the "rampant fiscal irresponsibility" of your > elected representatives, demand the line-item veto! > > charli The Constitution states that the House originates money bills. However because the executive branch is entrusted with administering the laws and the various departments which perform their functions it is the President who has presented budget proposals for the various departments of government since the beginning of our country. Once presented with the budget proposed by the President, the Congress can and always does amend it in various ways. But the basic tenor of the budget is set by the President and the executive branch since all Cabinet Departments are under the authority of the President and present their budget requests to him. Only recently did the Congress establish the Congressional Budget Office directly under Congress' authority to examine and calculate budget requests and economic estimates. Even so this small office is dwarfed by the resources for budget analysis possessed by all the other Cabinet Departments under the President's authority. Therefore the responsibility for making reasonable budget requests in the first place rests with the President. As I have already pointed out, 95% of President Reagan's budget requests have been approved by Congress. Moreover the changes made by Congress have generally *reduced* Reagan's original budget proposal, not *increased* those requests. It was *Reagan* who proposed and pushed very hard with the help of special interest groups for the tax cuts in 1981 which have been a major factor in the current deficit. It was *Reagan* who has proposed and spent already over $1 trillion (yes, TRILLION) on every new weapon system the Pentagon could dream up. Indeed *Reagan* has proposed to spend much more, only Congress has restrained those requests to a limited extent. That $1 trillion has cost every child, woman , and man in this country approximately $4348- aren't there better things you could imagine doing with $4348 than building yet more missile silos, bombers and nuclear warheads? Congress is indeed responsible for failing to stop this fiscal irresponsiblity on Reagan's part. But Reagan is responsible for initiating it and pressuring Congress in every way to go along with it. The problem is *not* as Reagan would have it those in Congress who have refused to go along with him. The problem is those in Congress who have *continued to go along with him* and approve 95% of his exorbitant budget requests. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (11/15/85)
>That $1 trillion has cost every child, woman , and man in this >country approximately $4348- aren't there better things you >could imagine doing with $4348 than building yet more missile silos, >bombers and nuclear warheads? > >Congress is indeed responsible for failing to stop this fiscal >irresponsiblity on Reagan's part. But Reagan is responsible >for initiating it and pressuring Congress in every way to >go along with it. The problem is *not* as Reagan would have it >those in Congress who have refused to go along with him. >The problem is those in Congress who have *continued to go along >with him* and approve 95% of his exorbitant budget requests. > tim sevener whuxn!orb I love the way everybody blames Regan for the current defense spending. If that Bleeding-heart-liberal bozo named Carter hadn't played hack and slash for 4 years ,and if congress hadn't sat around with it's head up it's ass for the past 13 years (since 1972) We would not have to make these massive defense outlays all at once! A case in point: The erstwhile congressman from New York (Addabbo(sp?), I think) FORCED THE AIR FORCE TO BUY ADDITIONAL A-10 ATTACK AIRCRAFT AT BETWEEN 8 AND 12 MILLION APIECE when the Air Force said that they had enough of them, and really didn't need anymore !!!! The reason? To keep a factory in his home district open. Never mind that this money could have been used other places and/or purposes.... Can YOU say "Pork-Barrell"??? Tim, when you say congress approved 95% of Reagan's requests, was that by number of requests, or $??? Here we are, sitting back with what probably amounts to the number 3 Armed Services in the world, faced with bozos that have openly declared "WE WILL BURY YOU!" and people are to blind to see that we have to maintain a strong defense. -- --Stormcrow o | | | | | | |___/ | o |______/ o | Never sit with your | back facing a window | or door. o [Standard Disclaimer applies] --- Lazarus Long.
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (11/17/85)
In article <344@dolqci.UUCP> mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) writes: > > If that Bleeding-heart-liberal bozo named Carter hadn't >played hack and slash for 4 years Well no wonder Carter never got anything useful done! I didn't know he played hack. By the way, what is slash? I looked in /usr/games on our system and couldn't find it. > >-- > --Stormcrow o > | | | > | | | > |___/ | > o |______/ o > | >Never sit with your | >back facing a window | >or door. o [Standard Disclaimer applies] > > --- Lazarus Long. Cloyd Goodrum III