Department of Housing and Urban Development Reduction Bill

[The Duke]

Social security and medicaid were exempted from both decisions, and that extrapolation of yours that an authorization for annuities and pensions for health, old age and unemployment, or whatever the constituion puts it as, are an authorization for all kinds of social spending, ahs been rebuked here many times before. Each time you manage to come back with it. Can it already.

I've never said that that section allows "all kinds of social spending".  I think it allows exactly what it says it allows.  It allows annuities to the elderly, which is exactly what social security is.  its as if the language was written with Social Security in mind.

And before you continue your insults at me, you do realize I essentially support the bill in question to cut Indian Housing?  I'm an ally of yours on this one, in case you hadn't noticed.

You did say it,it's in one of the Bono vs Atlasia threads, but I can't be bothered to look up now, and when I come back in the morning you'll probably will have it deleted.

It's good to see you changed your mind though, but you did used that and social welafre on the same train of thought. I don't think I insulted you, but sorry, whatever.

I used that line of thought to advocate for the outcome I wanted.

At the Constitutional Convention, I asked the convention to grant much broader powers to the government than what ended up being granted largely because I knew that the Constitution does not grant a near-blank-check to the Senate on welfare spending.  But when the case came up, I pulled out the best argument I had left, which was that Clauses 17 and the other relevant clauses authorize broad spending powers.  Like any good advocate would.

[The Dowager Mod]

I hereby veto this legislation,

x Ebowed

[© tweed]

applause!

Big Government shall conquer

[MasterJedi]

applause!

Big Government shall conquer

It's still 3-1 on the veto override.

[The Dowager Mod]

Nay on the override

[CheeseWhiz]

The office has already been cut,

Okay, why didn't you tell us this before we passed the bill?  I thought it's operations had been cut, but I knew nothing about the actual program being cut.

I didn't realize that until after the bill had been passed.

Still, are you sure?  You brought up that you thought it had been cut before, but Ernest said that it hadn't been cut, just declared unconstitutional.  Could you show me where you got that info?  Thanks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please explain.[/quote]

It tries to cut/abolish two things at the same time in an unorganized manner solely for the sake of getting a cut passed.  It looks like it was written on the back of an envelope; I don't really think it can be saved at all.  The bill was never a good idea to begin with.[/quote]

Okay, instead of insulting the writting could you please point out the actual flaws with the bill?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think so.  All the Senators discussed it for about 6 pages and most could agree that this could be cut.  If we can agree that something can or, better yet, needs to be cut, we should jump at the opportunity.
[/quote]

The only reason that discussion occured was because someone introduced a bill that would abolish the entire Department in the first place.  So, the Senate felt the need to at least cut something because the original bill was too extreme.  As I said, I feel that this was done for the wrong reasons.
[/quote]

So, if that sole purpose of the bill had always been to cut the Office of Public and Indian Housing would you have not vetoed it?  I really can't see why it matters where the idea came from, just what the bill is actually doing.  I'm just wondering what the problem was with what the bill would actually accomplish.  Do you have a problem with Jake's 10% cut, my abolishment of the OPIH, or both?

[Ebowed]

Still, are you sure?  You brought up that you thought it had been cut before, but Ernest said that it hadn't been cut, just declared unconstitutional.  Could you show me where you got that info?  Thanks

*The following programs were declared unconstitutional by Bono v. Atlasia II, and will cut from the FY 2006 Budget:

- Public and Indian Housing Programs, specifically the Native American Housing Block Grant cutting $0.626 billion for FY 2006 and all future years.

This was approved by the Senate when it voted Yea, 7-3, on the federal budget.

Okay, instead of insulting the writting could you please point out the actual flaws with the bill?

Much of the actual writing flaws were fixed with Peter Bell's amendment, but this doesn't change the fact that it smells like a television cartoon's script after coming out of a censorship board.  It's just an unorganized mess, combining two cuts into one bill, their only relation being that they're in the same department.  Why not write a thorough HUD cuts bill (not that I'd sign it), instead of just getting a couple agreeable cuts here and there?

So, if that sole purpose of the bill had always been to cut the Office of Public and Indian Housing would you have not vetoed it?  I really can't see why it matters where the idea came from, just what the bill is actually doing.  I'm just wondering what the problem was with what the bill would actually accomplish.  Do you have a problem with Jake's 10% cut, my abolishment of the OPIH, or both?

Oh, of course I have a problem with what the bill accomplishes, or else I wouldn't have vetoed it.  My complaints regarding why the bill says what it does now are only secondary, and I'm simply warning the Senate that this is a horrible way to go about pursuing legislation amendments, particularly budget cuts, in general.  There's no reason to amend and pass a bill solely because the bill was introduced in the first place.  If a bill is a bad idea, reject it.

[Sam Spade]

I would also like to protest the actions of PPT MasterJedi. According to the OSPR Article V Section 3 the sponsor of this bill has 72 hours to decide whether he wants the Senate to vote again on overidding the Presidents veto. Your actions in unanimously declaring that their shall not be a veto overide vote is illegal according to the OSPR. The final decision rests in the current sponsor of the bill, ie Senator CheeseWhiz, and he has to publically state whether or not he wants their to be a veto overide vote. I would hope that the PPT in any future instance of such a situation occuring would use his powers in the way that the OSPR subscribes.

I just said that the bill doesn't have enough votes for a veto override so I won't go for it. I didn't say the sponsor can't.

In the OSPR, the decision to pursue the veto override is entirely within the spectrum of the sponsor of the bill. 

The PPT has no power in pursing a veto override whatsoever.  He simply calls the vote once it has been requested.

I think it's best that way, personally.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Still, are you sure?  You brought up that you thought it had been cut before, but Ernest said that it hadn't been cut, just declared unconstitutional.  Could you show me where you got that info?  Thanks

You'll note that the Bono v. Atlasia II decision didn't declare the administration of those programs unconstitutional.  After all, the Senate could choose to eliminate the means-test instead of the program.  It would make the program more expensive, I'll grant but it would negate the application of Bono II.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm going to vote Nay on the override, so that possibility of amending the program to meet the restrictions on such programs established by the Bono II test can be more fully discussed.

[Gabu]

Nay on the override.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I congratulate Ebowed on finally doing something right.

[Peter]

Nay on the override.

First of all, the Court was wrong in certain regards. The fact that nobody every got me to overturn a load of the equal protection madness that came before my time is not my fault. Equal protection does not and should not mean that the government cannot make legitimate distinctions between persons in carrying out its constitutional powers. However, those parts of the decision are not wholly relevant here.

Regardless, we are stuck with that decision since I doubt the successor courts will get the cases they need to have to do what is necessary. In this regard, the OIPH has two components to it - an Indian Housing component and a Public Housing component. The Indian Housing component should be cut in regard of the fact that it creates a racial distinction and is therefore in violation of equal protection. The Public Housing component however does not present egregious equal protection violations and I am much more hesitant to engage in cuts of it.

[Emsworth]

First of all, the Court was wrong in certain regards. The fact that nobody every got me to overturn a load of the equal protection madness that came before my time is not my fault. Equal protection does not and should not mean that the government cannot make legitimate distinctions between persons in carrying out its constitutional powers.

You can always ask the court to reconsider the case, if you believe that there was an error.

[MasterJedi]

Abstain
___________________________________________________________


This veto override has enough votes to fail, Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[MasterJedi]

With 3 Ayes, 5 Nays and 1 Abstenation this veto override has failed.