Posted on Jan 10, 2023
Why is military spending, Social Security, and Medicare always on the chopping block?
2.17K
10
6
2
2
0
If Speaker McCarthy wants a balanced budget, how about instituting line item veto rather than cutting spending on military, Social Security, and Medicare? Of course, that would never pass because politicians think it is such a good idea for all Americans to pay for pork barrel projects that serve only a few.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-signal-cuts-to-social-security-medicare-with-new-house-majority/ar-AA168Kmz?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f4868dc2d4c2463b9af13ae3da3d4187
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-signal-cuts-to-social-security-medicare-with-new-house-majority/ar-AA168Kmz?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f4868dc2d4c2463b9af13ae3da3d4187
Government
Military Budget
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 3
Defense, SS, and Medicare are the biggest parts of the budget, so that's why they are always a target.
Line-item veto was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.
Line-item veto was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.
(4)
(0)
SFC Kathy Pepper
LTC Kevin B.
Defense, Social Security, and Medicare are also among the most important parts of the budget. Why should the country’s defense and elderly constantly be at risk of suffering the consequences of Congressional overspending?
When a President vetoes a bill, it goes back to Congress for a vote; a 2/3 vote will override the veto. In the case of a line-item veto, each line could go back for a vote. Of course, this would take a LOT of time, but many of these pork barrel add-ins would undoubtedly be denied the 2/3 majority.
Or, how about passing a law that states nothing may be added to the original bill? Many bills get passed, even though the add-ins double the cost, because the original request is so important.
Defense, Social Security, and Medicare are also among the most important parts of the budget. Why should the country’s defense and elderly constantly be at risk of suffering the consequences of Congressional overspending?
When a President vetoes a bill, it goes back to Congress for a vote; a 2/3 vote will override the veto. In the case of a line-item veto, each line could go back for a vote. Of course, this would take a LOT of time, but many of these pork barrel add-ins would undoubtedly be denied the 2/3 majority.
Or, how about passing a law that states nothing may be added to the original bill? Many bills get passed, even though the add-ins double the cost, because the original request is so important.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
and why did they just pass a bill that would raise the deficit by $114 billion?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republicans-set-pass-law-block-irs-funding/story?id=96319864
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republicans-set-pass-law-block-irs-funding/story?id=96319864
House Republicans pass legislation trying to block new IRS funding
House Republicans are poised on Monday night to make good on a campaign promise by approving a bill that would zero-out IRS funding from the Inflation Reduction Act
(2)
(0)
SFC Kathy Pepper
MSG Stan Hutchison
It makes sense that Republicans are trying to help American taxpayers (the bill passed in a party-line vote, 221-210) by blocking the IRS from hiring customer service representatives to answer questions. It’s okay if someone is on hold for an hour or more because anything worth knowing is worth waiting for. The IRS certainly doesn’t need to hire IT specialists, who probably don’t even understand the 1960s era COBOL program they use. And if the computer system were updated, then refunds would be sent out faster, thus denying the government the opportunity to waste … I mean spend … that money, rather than the taxpayers who actually earned that money. It cannot possibly help the average taxpayer if the IRS were to hire more auditors to go after the billionaires and mega-millionaires who pay almost no taxes. Did I say “almost no taxes”? I mean no taxes. Like Kevin McCarthy said in the article, “…the government should be here to help you, not go after you….” It’s like I used to tell my Soldiers: I’m from the government. I’m here to help you.
It makes sense that Republicans are trying to help American taxpayers (the bill passed in a party-line vote, 221-210) by blocking the IRS from hiring customer service representatives to answer questions. It’s okay if someone is on hold for an hour or more because anything worth knowing is worth waiting for. The IRS certainly doesn’t need to hire IT specialists, who probably don’t even understand the 1960s era COBOL program they use. And if the computer system were updated, then refunds would be sent out faster, thus denying the government the opportunity to waste … I mean spend … that money, rather than the taxpayers who actually earned that money. It cannot possibly help the average taxpayer if the IRS were to hire more auditors to go after the billionaires and mega-millionaires who pay almost no taxes. Did I say “almost no taxes”? I mean no taxes. Like Kevin McCarthy said in the article, “…the government should be here to help you, not go after you….” It’s like I used to tell my Soldiers: I’m from the government. I’m here to help you.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Thats simple...They are hot button topics for single issue voters. If they actually fixed anything then they (both sides) would have nothing to run on next time and no reason to turn the other guy in to the enemy.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google