The pay as you go rule?

Question

Anyone know why the pay as you go rule was abandonned?
During the 90's when the republicans controlled congress and the Democrats controlled the white house, a bi-partisen agreement was reached that any time a program was proposed that included increased spending, it had to be offset by reducing spending somewhere else. After George Bush was elected, the republicans controlled Congress and the Whitehouse. At that time pay as you go was abandoned. It seemed like very logical idea and have never understood why it was pushed to the side.

The line item Veto would take a constitutional amendment, but I would be for it

Answer 1

I like it, and I want it.
While we're at it... now that the Democratic Party thinks they are a shoo in for the Presidency...would you be willing to accept the line item veto?
That's the best way to cut the lard out.

Answer 2

Because the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, and neo-cons have no interest in fiscal responsibility the way fiscal conservatives had.

So, they stopped even trying to have a balanced budget, and just doubled the national debt. We've accumulated more debt in the past six years than in the preceding 60 years before that.

Answer 3

The line item veto is a horrible, horrible idea. It would completely disrupt the balance of power and authority between the executive and legislative branches. Horrible.

Answer 4

The pay as you go rule still exists, but doesn't apply to war and security spending. Whenever the administration wants to add pork to the budget, they claim a war exemption and spend with-out care.

Answer 5

It gets in the way of vote buying politicians. Elected officials spend our tax dollars to get people to vote for them. A cut back in spending makes them think they will be voted out of office.