A Democratic or Republican president could give greater leeway to their respective parties... and just cause Clinton didn't abuse it (a Republican might disagree, I really don't know), doesn't mean McCain or Obama won't. Also, it essentially allows the Executive Branch to rewrite bills.

Why can't a president actually DO what he says and NOT approve any bills with pork? And say he won't approve it cause it has too much pork?

Up or down votes ONLY - everything else is a breach of Constitutional authority, just as the Supreme Court said. That doesn't mean we write an amendment to the Constitution to allow it... it means we don't do it.


Very true... and I'm just hoping there is something we haven't thought of yet.


I'm 21 and have no plan in even considering I will see my SS money back, which is why as soon as I *DO* start my career, I'm opening a 401K or IRA as soon as possible. I won't tolerate being screwed by a government made up of politicians who can't see past the end of their current term.

And while the "means test" system removes burden from the lower class, it basically keeps money from everyone else. That's not the role of government, in my opinion.

Government provides equality... it doesn't enforce it.

Doesn't "line item veto" disrupt legislative and executive "checks and balances?"

Wouldn't this set up a, for lack of a better word, "partisan tyrrany?"

Say the President is in Political party A......a bill comes to the President that has pet Party A projects, and some pet Party B projects.....the President being party A, strikes the party B projects, but keeps party A.

Isn't this the kind of "tyrrany" the founders were hoping to avoid?

Residing in a state that has the line item veto, from observation it simply becomes as Patton suggests little more than a form of political "tyranny."  It isn't the answer as some might suggest. When there is one party government as there has been for much of the Bush Administration, with no power for either Party to overturn a veto, there just becomes in the Senate the threats of the filibuster and considerable waste of time and effort with partisan posturing and little accomplished.

I find I'm always fascinated as well, by those who do not actually deal with Social Security nor Medicare on an up close and personal basis, but expound theory of how it should work. No real relationship to how life was prior to the two programs that made survival, though not in many cases, under terrific circumstances a basis far different than before the two successful programs existed. As a beneficiary of both, though hardly the major factor of household income they are for us what they were intended to be. Only a supplement, but not a living.  The unfortunate reality is many of the elderly, living though out their working years had not the opportunity to plan and save enough to be self sufficient.  Means testing may seem to be a great idea, but if one observes programs that are entitlements, means testing becomes a method to change the levels by the political party in power to change the rules while the game is in progress leaving those who made plans for their retirements based on the rules when they began, unable to depend on the entitlement planned on. Classic examples are the means testing with other entitlements such as AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid and even the those entitled to VA medical care.  Though many such entitlements might be meant to assist some over a rough spot in life, as the spots get rougher, and the budget for social services is cut by changing the rules, the means are lowered and benefits are denied to more and more depending on the political philosophy of the Party in power at the time.

McCain's suggested use of a tax credit to assist in paying for health care might be fine for those who are affluent. Those who aren't would go without as millions do today. Hardly
encourages the work ethic as those who earn little would gain no benefit from such a plan.  Not unusual though for those of the Reagan generation who ascribe to the philosophy he
was classic for.  Greed is good, I've got mine, screw you. Who could forget in CA when he promised to do for the nation what he did for CA. Like the nation is now in economic
straights CA is at least as bad. And Arnold has the line item veto, but once again it becomes a political ploy and little more.  Never forget that the primary goal of some even in
states that like CA have term limits, what is of the ultimate importance is re-election and that is even more so at the Federal level.  

I understand that a lot of law making is compromise between parties or faction in parties, and I'd think every use of a line item veto would go against the spirit of those compromises, one side changing the deal after it's been agreed on.

I don't see how a means test is going to leave any of those you describe behind.  A business as usual approach will eventually leave everyone behind, however, unless serious changes are made soon.  I would certainly like to have the same benefits as you enjoy some day, but I know that that is not going to happen by the time I retire.  I also know that it is unreasonable for me to have that expectation if I can work or have the savings to support myself.

Providing a 20+ year (and growing) retirement funded by a continually dwindling ratio of working age participants is neither reasonable, fair, nor sustainable.


I am not especially familiar with the situation in CA, but here in UT, the line item veto works pretty well.  Last year we had a budget surplus of $400 million.  Our economy is also doing quite well in spite of the national economy.

Quarken, what you ignore is the large numbers of those who receive SSA that remain in the work force. And there is a means test for those who do that limits their earnings or they must pay 50 cent on the dollar of what they earn in taxes.  As they age the limits increase the cap goes up, but only after age 70 can one who is receiving SSA earn an unlimited amount. And the age for full retirement has already been raised. And those who do remain in the work force though receiving SSA also continue to pay into it from their earnings. For many it's a Catch 22. Keep working, keep paying and keep the earnings below the cap though one can't quit work because there is not enough available through SSA to live on.  That free ride for 20 years for the typical SSA beneficiary is hardly as you paint it in reality.

And those high wage wage earners are capped and at level that is somewhat unrealistic at which they currently are required to
pay in. So those who earn more may pay into the system, but get relief from what they pay when they reach the earnings cap.
And it those who then who have paid in more that take more out as it was designed. There there is also a tax earnings cap.
For a couple who are receiving SSA, half of that income, combined with all other taxable income is taxed on any income over
$32,000.  A tax that took effect in 1986 under the Reagan Tax Reform Act and hasn't been indexed since that time under any
of the so-called Bush tax cuts. So with required distributions from IRAs, half of even low SSA payments, military retirement and a small Federal retirement come April 15th each year since I do the taxes in our household, I send the IRS a check. So though it doesn't go into the SSA trust fund, but instead into the general fund, we continue to pay taxes on the SSA. While the
$32,000 cap in 1986 may have been a reasonable one, in today's dollars it really isn't a huge income for a couple who receive
SSA.  And I'll also remind you as you work and save, inflation and the value of the dollar is hardly a static factor nor are the
interest rates paid regardless of where and how you save.

LOL, yes a full fledged member of the "Me Generation." If you get your way, you might want to also save a bit to assist your
parents in their dotage as they may have to depend on you for care and medical care or then maybe you would choose to just
throw them under the bus.  Or maybe you would choose to pay for some sort of long term care for them to provide?  BTW,
my sister is very fortunate she and my brother-in-law managed to work hard, get very lucky in a business in her location where for years there was little competition so they were able to working hard and investments to now have a number of millions to depend on. Medicare doesn't provide for long term care in nursing homes and very little toward home care. While Medicaid may help in some cases, but only for those who are impoverished.  At age 67 though eligible for both Medicare and
SSA, after many years of poor health, surgeries, by-passes and an artificial mitral valve, he now suffers from both dementia
from lack of blood flow to the brain and Alzheimer's too. Though it costs only slightly more than having him placed, she's opted for home care for him.  He has care givers 20 hours a day.  My sister cares for him from 5:00 pm. until 9:00 pm each
day, but the cost is $8,000 per month for the care givers only. Because they owned the business, they always had good medical care insurance and that continues to pay for his other care, but with huge deductibles and co-pays. Not a pretty picture at the very best.  I hate to think should that be the case for us. I would be required to spend down what we have to
almost nothing and then apply for Medicaid and have my spouse placed into one of the snake pits that actually accept Medicaid. Home care. Forget it.  VA care the same.  Something to think about as you save and as your parents age.


And on the issue of the line item veto.  Utah?  Who controls the state legislature? There hasn't been a Democrat elected to the Governor's office since 1985. One party government doesn't create much of a conflict where the line item veto is one that has much necessity. The last possibility of divided government in Utah goes back to before you were born. A bit different in CA and
also in the Federal Government.

My best suggestion to you is to learn a bit about what you advocate as if you are able to obtain it you may find it comes back to bite you.  As I've mentioned on another thread, I'm retired Congressional staff and have had the advantage of being more
aware of the laws as a caseworker dealing with a variety of issues.  I think you'll find if you go to SSA.gov or SSI.gov or IRS.gov I am correct.

I am aware that working reduces your benefits.  It should.  If you can work, I can see no reason to depend on the govt for entitlements.

I am very familiar with average rates of return on various asset classes.  Inflation has averaged 3.0% over the last 80 years.  Large cap stocks have averaged 10.4% over that same period.  Investing in a diversified stock index fund should net you 8.4% on average over inflation (of course, it would be wise to invest in lower risk assets as you near your retirement goal).  Investing 10% of your income over your lifetime should easily cover your retirement at a lifestyle equivalent to that of your working years.  Investing 15% of your income would allow you to retire quite comfortably.  Saving 15% should hardly be a strain on anyone of moderate or better income.

I actually know these numbers pretty well.  I would be happy to do the math for you if you would like to look at a few different scenarios.  It's not that hard.

First, my parents are quite capable of supporting themselves with or without SS/medicare.  Both my grandfather on my mother's side, and my father are private business owners.  I am sure that either of them would be insulted by any offer on my part to support them.

Second, I am sure you understand why anecdotal evidence is a very poor basis to support an argument, so I won't remind you.  This is aside, of course, from the fact that, once again, means testing, by definition, would not prevent hardship cases such as these from getting benefits.  It would prevent, however, people who can work, or have savings enough to support themselves, from relying on a dwindling ratio of working age participants to fund their retirement.

I don't see how this is relevant.  The federal government was under the control of two seperate parties at the time we had a line item veto and a balanced budget.  I believe that having two branches of govt controlled by different parties leads to greater fiscal responsibility rather than less.  I would be surprised if data on historical spending did not back this up.

Congratulations on having been a congressional staff member.  It makes more sense, now, that you prefer anecdotal evidence over emperical.  Anecdotal evidence is certainly the currency of political persuasion, unfortunately.  Perhaps if you had spent a greater deal of time working in the private sector you would be more sympathetic to those who would like to rely less on govt entitlements for future income.