[ischuldt]

Supposedly the house passed a bill recently that would give them self power to veto any regulations imposed by any of the regulatory agencies controlled by the executive branch. Namely the FDA, EPA and such...

I don't understand the exact wording of the bill, but the general concept I actually kind of like. Essentially the reason we need the EPA and other agencies like that is because congress is too fucking worthless to act quickly enough to respond to threats to these various threats to our environment in a timely matter. With the amount of bitching and bickering and partisanship even the simplest ideas are almost impossible to get through.

That doesn't mean we wouldn't like to have over site of these agencies just that it's too important to let these things get bogged down in the mess that is congress. This bill as I understand it would have the reverse effect. If congress was incapable of coming to an agreement on vetoing a regulation then the regulation would go into effect. So rather than congresses dawdling preventing anything from getting done, congresses dawdling would actually allow things to get done.

If there was something really important that the people were absolutely against congress could still block it, but the way congress works that would be difficult to do if it wasn't pretty obvious that it needed to be blocked.

I think this approach should be used for potentially a lot of other things. For example maybe the deficit or the current economic predicament we're in. Rather that requiring Congress to act in order to pass legislation straightening out our deficit let the president come up with some bills that would cut what he thinks should be cut, and if congress doesn't like it they can veto it, but if they can't come to agreement it passes.

Part of the problem we have in congress right now is republicans refuse to vote for anything the president wants. They're afraid if they do and their base doesn't like it that will hurt them in the next election because it will look like they helped the president.

If you flip it around though they just have to not vote against it. It allows them to sort of wash their hands of it a bit more by saying, "I didn't like what the president was doing, but we couldn't get enough votes to stop it."

I don't think we should do this for everything, but certainly this is the approach we've taken for certain things that we know are too important to get bogged down in congress. That's why we created many of these agencies, and it's why the president is commander and chief of the military. Our economy and our deficit are pressing enough problems that waiting for congress to act is unacceptable. When time is of the essence I say we flip things around and let the president take more initiative.

[Aronnax]

Congress already has this power, they just have to pass a law to prevent action.

What this new bill would accomplish is adding an additional layer of bureaucracy to the system and give members of congress another lever to force pork into new bills.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Rather that requiring Congress to act in order to pass legislation straightening out our deficit let the president come up with some bills that would cut what he thinks should be cut, and if congress doesn't like it they can veto it, but if they can't come to agreement it passes.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


We need fewer Congressional limits on Presidential power? Seriously?

[Daoist]

This goes along with the mantra "don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions." ...But there could always be more power grabs in the fine print. Still waiting to see the details.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Congressional limits on Presidential power? Seriously?

As I said I'm not arguing we do this for everything, but certainly there are things that it does make sense for. In some cases we probably have given too much authority to the executive branch.

But when the economy is as bad as it has been for the last 6 years or so it's obvious we need action. We've just seen that even 12 congressmen sitting in a room together for a few months straight can't come to agreement on how to cut our deficit. It's obvious action needs to be taken to resolve our debt problems.

Considering all but 7 Senators recently voted to give the president the right to detain an American citizen indefinitely without trial I really don't think congressional approval would have prevented water boarding or the internment of the Chinese.

---------- Post added 12-09-2011 at 01:25 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Congress already has this power, they just have to pass a law to prevent action. What this new bill would accomplish is adding an additional layer of bureaucracy to the system and give members of congress another lever to force pork into new bills.

If it would require them to vote on every regulation, and open up the chance to add pork to a regulation then it certainly would be a bad thing. Just based on my initial reading of it though it sounded like it was a straight up or down vote and if they didn't vote it down then it would become law.

I think if that's all it was it would be fine.

[Sumwun]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it would require them to vote on every regulation, and open up the chance to add pork to a regulation then it certainly would be a bad thing. Just based on my initial reading of it though it sounded like it was a straight up or down vote and if they didn't vote it down then it would become law. I think if that's all it was it would be fine.

So can you explain this a little more clearly?

Does it basically give them the power to make a law valid then and there? That sounds like it could be abused.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So can you explain this a little more clearly? Does it basically give them the power to make a law valid then and there? That sounds like it could be abused.

That's what I'm a little confused about as well in terms of the bill. If it was just an up or down vote then all it would be is an added check on regulators to prevent them from over regulating. If however this allows them to drastically modify the regulation and have their modifications become law then I'm against it.

Generally with a veto in terms of how the president uses it he can only give the thumbs up or the thumbs down he can't modify it. When the bill the republicans passed it was referred to as a veto so I assume it would work the same way.

[Sumwun]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's what I'm a little confused about as well in terms of the bill. If it was just an up or down vote then all it would be is an added check on regulators to prevent them from over regulating. If however this allows them to drastically modify the regulation and have their modifications become law then I'm against it. Generally with a veto in terms of how the president uses it he can only give the thumbs up or the thumbs down he can't modify it. When the bill the republicans passed it was referred to as a veto so I assume it would work the same way.

With this law, the president can still veto it if he so chooses, right? The term "reverse-veto" kind of implies that that power can be reversed.

I don't understand the wording of this bill... Far too vague.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it would require them to vote on every regulation, and open up the chance to add pork to a regulation then it certainly would be a bad thing. Just based on my initial reading of it though it sounded like it was a straight up or down vote and if they didn't vote it down then it would become law. I think if that's all it was it would be fine.

Do you know how long it takes congress (and how many backdoor deals are made) in order to make a "simple up or down vote"? "Abstaining = pass" just shifts the safety position to "no" where they negotiate for support for other riders on new bills when the same regulation returns for a new vote.

Congress already has a similar power, if they really don't like a regulation they can pass a law that eliminates it. The only difference is this power is locked in the original check/balance system. The sensible solution to an executive that's too powerful is to legally reduce the power of the executive, not increase the power of congress.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you know how long it takes congress (and how many backdoor deals are made) in order to make a "simple up or down vote"? "Abstaining = pass" just shifts the safety position to "no"

Right now there is no safety position at all on regulations. Pretty much everything regulators want to regulate they can.

With other things like jobs and the deficit the safety position is locked down so tight nothing can be done at all. Loosing it up at least temporarily seems fine to me.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Congress already has a similar power, if they really don't like a regulation they can pass a law that eliminates it. The only difference is this power is locked in the original check/balance system.

But in the original check and balance system passing a law to eliminate the regulation opens it up to all kinds of pork being added to the law that has nothing to do with the law. A simple up or down vote only gives them a ya or nah without being able to change things.

It also means the president could ultimately veto that bill which obviously he will because otherwise he wouldn't have authorized the regulation in the first place.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The sensible solution to an executive that's too powerful is to legally reduce the power of the executive, not increase the power of congress.

This does reduce the power of the executive. It prevents him from simply passing any regulation he wants whenever he wants to.

---------- Post added 12-09-2011 at 02:32 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	With this law, the president can still veto it if he so chooses, right? The term "reverse-veto" kind of implies that that power can be reversed.

If I understand it correctly(which I may not) then no the president couldn't veto congresses decision. The president has to give the original ok for the regulations to go forward in the first place. Right now there is no check at all to that power the president has.

Normally actions from the government originate and are designed in congress and only approved or disapproved by the president. However some powers that require the speed and efficiency that only the executive branch can handle have been given directly to the president with very little or no over site from congress.

I think we definitely need to do that for certain things like war decisions and what not, but we should at least have congress have the ability to reign in that power if the executive is going too far.

As I understand it that is what this bill is intended to do, and if that's true I'm fine with it.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Right now there is no safety position at all on regulations. Pretty much everything regulators want to regulate they can. With other things like jobs and the deficit the safety position is locked down so tight nothing can be done at all.

False.

The scope of their regulatory powers are defined by the law that congress passed to create the agency in the first place. Congress can, and has, passed laws limiting the scope of regulatory agencies in the past.

	But in the original check and balance system passing a law to eliminate the regulation opens it up to all kinds of pork being added to the law that has nothing to do with the law. A simple up or down vote only gives them a ya or nah without being able to change things.

Votes are traded. The currency to "buy" votes is the promise of a future vote on a different bill or a promise to add a rider that benefits a specific congressional district (pork). Are you starting to you understand what adding additional votes will do to the system yet?

	It also means the president could ultimately veto that bill which obviously he will because otherwise he wouldn't have authorized the regulation in the first place.

And congress has the power to override a veto.

	This does reduce the power of the executive. It prevents him from simply passing any regulation he wants whenever he wants to.

Read what I said again:

	Originally Posted by Aronnax
	The sensible solution to an executive that's too powerful is to legally reduce the power of the executive, not increase the power of congress.

The key portion here is "sensible solution". As in directly targeting specific regulation creates less unintended consequences than making the federal government even more convoluted and feckless.

[ischuldt]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The scope of their regulatory powers are defined by the law that congress passed to create the agency in the first place. Congress can, and has, passed laws limiting the scope of regulatory agencies in the past. The key portion here is "sensible solution". As in directly targeting specific regulation creates less unintended consequences than making the federal government even more convoluted and feckless.

Targeting specific regulation does make the most sense, and that's what I'm arguing for. Letting congress target one specific regulation instead of writing a whole new bill of their own that contains god knows what.

A bill like that requires them to narrow the scope of the entire agency. We don't want that. There is no doubt that it should be within the scope of the EPA to limit the amounts of which pollutants that can be dumped into the water supply.

This as I understand it allows them to target specific regulations without completely redesigning the whole agency every time, and writing a whole bill with all the riders that come with it to do it.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Votes are traded. The currency to "buy" votes is the promise of a future vote on a different bill or a promise to add a rider that benefits a specific congressional district (pork). Are you starting to you understand what adding additional votes will do to the system yet?

I understand that fully, but that problem already exists. As you said if congress wants to write a bill that narrows the scope of an agency they can and votes would have to be traded to do that.

All this would do is prevent things from being added to this bill. So you get the over site you want, but without increasing the # of bills congress passes and thus giving them more chances at adding pork.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And congress has the power to override a veto.

<sarcasm>Yeah cause that happens so often.</sarcasm>

[Sumwun]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I understand it correctly(which I may not) then no the president couldn't veto congresses decision. The president has to give the original ok for the regulations to go forward in the first place. Right now there is no check at all to that power the president has.

Isn't the President's ability to veto a power check in and of itself? Wouldn't overriding that basically take away the President's ability to check power?

[Daoist]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Targeting specific regulation does make the most sense, and that's what I'm arguing for. Letting congress target one specific regulation instead of writing a whole new bill of their own that contains god knows what. A bill like that requires them to narrow the scope of the entire agency. We don't want that. There is no doubt that it should be within the scope of the EPA to limit the amounts of which pollutants that can be dumped into the water supply. This as I understand it allows them to target specific regulations without completely redesigning the whole agency every time, and writing a whole bill with all the riders that come with it to do it.

I think I see where this is going...and it isn't a check on presidential powers at all. It's a simple increase in congressional powers. It's a way for them to say, we told EPA to do a scientific cost-benefit analysis of water pollution, and we didn't like the result - even though we can't find anything wrong with the process - so we're just going to pretend we didn't see it.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Isn't the President's ability to veto a power check in and of itself? Wouldn't overriding that basically take away the President's ability to check power?

no, because in this case the regulation originates with the president. He has already had the option to veto it by virtue of being the one who creates the regulation in the first place. If he could then veto whatever decision congress made after that it leave the congressional veto meaningless.

---------- Post added 12-11-2011 at 07:36 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think I see where this is going...and it isn't a check on presidential powers at all. It's a simple increase in congressional powers.

I disagree. It's a check on presidential powers, via giving congress more power. The only other option however would be to take away the presidential power all together which would mean eliminating the EPA, FCC,.... and forcing all military decisions to be pre-authorized by congress.

That would be overkill, and more harmful than necessary. Simply giving congress the power to check what the executive branch is doing makes much more sense I think.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As I said I'm not arguing we do this for everything, but certainly there are things that it does make sense for. In some cases we probably have given too much authority to the executive branch.

Congress has immense power; they're just too busy lining their pockets to use it properly.

If anything, this bill makes lobbying congress a more lucrative endeavor, which makes being a congressman a more lucrative endeavor. It's win/win, since so many congressmen spend time lobbying on behalf of their funding organizations when they're not in office

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Congress has immense power; they're just too busy lining their pockets to use it properly. [...] If anything, this bill makes lobbying congress a more lucrative endeavor, which makes being a congressman a more lucrative endeavor. It's win/win, since so many congressmen spend time lobbying on behalf of their funding organizations when they're not in office

Agreed. Regulations go through several layers of bureaucracy already; putting them to a congressional vote just gives those with enough money one more chance to exercise their influence on decision-making. To say nothing of subjecting regulation to the same kind of partisan gridlock that plagues our appointments of federal judges.

If Congress doesn't like it, they can pass a law. That's their oversight power.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Congress has immense power; they're just too busy lining their pockets to use it properly. If anything, this bill makes lobbying congress a more lucrative endeavor, which makes being a congressman a more lucrative endeavor. It's win/win, since so many congressmen spend time lobbying on behalf of their funding organizations when they're not in office

This is a good point, but it seems to me the solution there is to do more to prevent the pocket lining. I realize that the reality is congress is allowing too much corporate money to influence their decisions, but if we think minimizing votes in congress is the right solution then why even have congress?

I think the real solution is finding ways to limit the cash flow that lobbyists can use to influence congress, and then let them vote on what they should be voting on.