Yep! there are a couple of Tech grads, both former members of the BOP, and friends of mine....well, in fact, I had hired him as a part-time financial analyst, when all I had was that part-time slot. He got 20 hours per week, and while it still was a nice salary, all things considered, it was not a fulltime gig and his wife is a stay-home mom for their 3 kids. He had a finance degree from Tech and he was smart, and dedicated, and...I was concerned I was gonna lose him to a fulltime job somewhere else. So, one day, I just asked him...how are y'all making it? He kind of sheepishly said he inherited about 1,000 acres along the Mississippi River, up near Lake Providence, and he gets a "very, very, very nice check from the USDA not to do anything with it." In other words, he didn't even need the part-time pay, he just did it because he liked finance and liked what he was doing for us, and it gave him something to do.
Because the GOP leadership is mired in the muck of The Swamp too. Not as deep as the dems, and in different parts of The Swamp (emphasis on different sectors), but nonetheless, in it. Trump is the first, and perhaps ONLY, office holder who has ALL Swampers in his sights. This is what some of us are saying on that other thread.
And, as I think on it, observe what is going on, I lean toward Trump being not tough enough. He needs to take a stand against any budget that does not leave a surplus. There is no line-item veto measure, so just veto the whole spending bill.
BTW, just an aside, another foray into history! The Confederate States of America Constitution was closely modeled after the US Constitution, with some notable differences. One being a line-item veto. The President of the CSA could approve a budget, but strike out certain lines. The Confederate Congress could then vote to overturn the President's line-item vetoes, with a super majority vote in both houses. I don't recall what that percentage was.
I see merit in the line-item veto measure.
Problem with the line-item veto is that is violated the principle of separation of powers. Making the branches of government co-equal was a smart move for mitigating the risk of authoritarianism.
Well, under the CSA system, as I posted, Congress could overturn the President's line item veto with a vote of some percentage (guess I'll have to look it up). Let's say the Prez vetoed three budget line items. Each of those three would be voted on separately. Maybe two of the three receive the necessary votes, those two are restored to the budget. In that way there is a separation of power. Each branch has recourse to affect the budget.
The important aspect of the presidential line item veto is it can eliminate pork barrel projects, those measures where one group of legislators agree to vote on someone's pet project just to garner votes for one of theirs. The President can line item veto BOTH such pet projects. And probably, neither would garner enough support to overturn the veto.
I like it.
I understand the pork barrel spending angle. That is what I liked about it.
But, it also makes it more difficult to achieve compromise - to make deals happen.
Well, consider this on the compromise issue. BOTH parties in Congress, especially the party without the WH, had better compromise before they send a budget to the Prez. They need to work out their differences and agree they like the budget and every line item in it. By doing that they can pretty much assure they can overturn any and all line item vetoes. Congress has the final word on that.
1. Congress sends a spending bill to the WH
2. Prez goes thru it, strikes out some budget items, then signs the bill.
3. Congress gets the revised budget.
4. Congress votes to overturn the line items vetoed and gets enough votes.
5. The budget for that FY is set. (Congress has the final say)
So! by both parties in both houses negotiating, compromising, and reaching a consensus before they submit a budget to the WH, they can be fairly certain they'll win in the end. To me it creates an even better environment for compromise.
Now, you will say, yeah but the party with the WH holds an advantage. Yes, true. Elections have consequences. But, we all know that The Swamp is really one big happy club where the initial behind the name (D) or (R) is largely irrelevant. The party "out of power" will have to compromise a little more, true. But I guarantee they all know that every 4 years that pendulum can swing the other way, so they will all play nice in the sand box.
Know what? Let's try it! It would be quite revealing to the general public.