POL--Line Item Veto

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/bush.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush proposed a new law Monday that would help him curb spending by proposing vetoes of specific items in spending bills -- authority that the Supreme Court struck down eight years ago but which would be structured differently under Bush's plan.

"Forty-three governors have this line-item veto in their states," Bush said. "Now it's time to bring this important tool of fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C."

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law. Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it allowed the president to single-handedly amend laws passed by Congress.

"Congress gave the president the line-item veto in 1996, but because with problems the way the law was written, the Supreme Court struck it down," Bush said. "That should not be the end of the story."

Bush announced his plan, which he first revealed in his State of the Union address a month ago, at the swearing-in ceremony for Edward Lazear, the new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Bush has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, but he said the line-item veto would help "reduce wasteful spending, reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."

Earlier version struck down

The earlier version of the line-item veto allowed Clinton to single-handedly strike parochial projects and special interest tax breaks. It was passed by Congress as one of the key planks of the GOP's "Contract With America."

Instead, Bush is proposing that he be allowed to send Congress proposals to strike earmarks from spending bills and special interest tax breaks and that Congress be required to bring them to a vote. Constitutional scholars say this version should pass muster with the Supreme Court.

Lawmakers' enthusiasm for the earlier veto power waned sharply in 1997 after Clinton used it gently against a handful of special interest tax provisions and about 80 earmarks from spending bills, leading some lawmakers to change their minds.

Bush's version was actually pushed by Democrats in the 1990s -- including Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who filed suit against the 1996 law. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, pushed a similar approach in his presidential campaign.

Still, a proposal similar to Bush's veto plan was actually voted down by the House two years ago a 174-237 vote, with three out of four Democrats voting "nay."

Lawmakers opposed to the line-item veto idea say that Congress should carefully guard its power of the purse and that presidents could use the expanded power against their political enemies.

But supporters say the practice of larding legislation with hometown projects and special interest tax breaks has gotten out of control. Now that Congress itself is pushing for "earmark reform," they may be more willing to go along.

______________________________________________________________

Assume that the article is right and it will be possible to have federal line-item veto that is constitutional. Is it a good idea? Does it give too much power to the executive at the expense of Congress? Does it disrupt the careful give-and-take that goes into legislation by making bills amendable after the fact?

Or, is it a good thing because it provides a mechanism to bring public attention to the most egregious parts of large spending bills and focus that attention on one person (the President) instead of the amorphous Congress.

My personal jury is still out on this. Overall, I think that it is a bad idea, but the world hasn't ended in the states that do it, so maybe it's not such a bad idea after all (although I would note that the states (most of whom have line-item veto) don't seem to be models of fiscal restraint, so maybe this is all much ado about nothin'.)

[st.cronin]

I don't like the idea, myself, but haven't really put much thought into it. Just seems like too much power in the oval office.

[wade moore]

My personal jury is still out on this. Overall, I think that it is a bad idea, but the world hasn't ended in the states that do it, so maybe it's not such a bad idea after all (although I would note that the states (most of whom have line-item veto) don't seem to be models of fiscal restraint, so maybe this is all much ado about nothin'.)

I am also a bit unsure of how I feel. I definately thought that Clinton's method was too far-reaching, but this is clearly different.

My biggest concern with this is actually a lot different than yours. I fear that this takes a lot of fiscal responsibility away from the Congressman/Senators. Now they can put that pork into the bill, then Bush takes it out, but they can go to their constituants and say, "hey, I put it in there, but stupid old prez took it out". That concerns me a LOT.

That being said, SOMETHING needs to be done about the pork in bills. Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough in these things to know of a better way, so maybe this is a good start.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty much a supporter of the general idea of line-item veto power.

[ISiddiqui]

Bush is proposing that he be allowed to send Congress proposals to strike earmarks from spending bills and special interest tax breaks and that Congress be required to bring them to a vote.
That sounds very borderline... and I'd say unconstitutional. The President can send Congress proposals that it MUST be required to bring to a vote? Isn't Congress the branch that is supposed to propose laws? This requirement that Congress vote on the President's proposal seems to skirt the Constitutional mandate, IMO.

[st.cronin]

My biggest concern with this is actually a lot different than yours. I fear that this takes a lot of fiscal responsibility away from the Congressman/Senators. Now they can put that pork into the bill, then Bush takes it out, but they can go to their constituants and say, "hey, I put it in there, but stupid old prez took it out". That concerns me a LOT.

So, no big difference?

[wade moore]

So, no big difference?
Well.. maybe I should have worded it something like "takes EVEN MORE fiscal responsibility away..."

[sabotai]

I don't really like the idea myself. It puts too much power into the hands of the President when it comes to the budget and spending. But, on the other hand, government moves so slowly that sending a bill back to congress several times just to weed out a few spending items the President doesn't like is way too time consuming, especially if 99% of the bill is something the President would sign off on. But, on the other hand, that wouldn't be a bad thing some of the time....

I know! Form a commitee!! :D

[Subby]

I like it in theory. In practice I think it could become too much of a political weapon.

Just as an example - let's say a Prez is up for re-election in the coming year. He needs swing states like Ohio and Florida. A spending bill comes before him with ridiculously wasteful public works projects scheduled for those two states. If he axes them, it costs him serious political capital. If he lets them slide, he curries favor.

Maybe I am being overly negative, but it just seems to open up avenues for abuse.

[gstelmack]

It seems like a key problem are ammedments to bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself. Maybe if Congress would get off their butts and fix that problem, this would be less of an issue? Wouldn't help with pork buried in a normal spending bill, but would help with pork or hot-button issues that are buried in some completely unrelated bill.

[kcchief19]

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.On the constitutional question -- I don't see how make a veto override vote mandatory clears the constitutional question. The "plain text" reading of the constitution says it shall be approved by him or disapproved by him -- I don't see how a partial disapproval is possible without amending the constitution.

That said, I think a line-item veto could be good, but in the rarefied air of the U.S. government it would be ceremonial at best. Would a Republican president draw a line through $5 million for the Beef and Cattleman's Steak Hall of Fame in a Republican district? Would a Democratic president have the gumption to draw a line through a $5 million research project supporting big business? I think it works better on a state level where people don't care that much.

I think it's odd that the president is pushing this because I think it would shift a greater burden of responsibility for deficit to the presidency and away from Congress. Right now, the president can say that his hands are tied and he has to go along with the pork or we're going to have to shut down the government without a budget. With a line item veto, the buck will more greatly rest with the president. Even if the president uses the power, it's generally going to be a lose/lose proposition -- it will no longer be Congress that can funding for your program, it was the president. There's a reason Clinton didn't use it much when he had it for a brief time, other than the fact that they were just testing the constitutionality.

I'm not sure as a Congressman I'd support it either, because you're giving away a lot of power. Mustering a 2/3 majority to override a veto on a pork barrell project will be tough to do.

My cynical guess is that the president is proposing this now because he knows it won't pass in the Congress, but he can look like he's for it and divert attention from some other issues. That's a tried-and-true presidential move. Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe he wants to draw a line through the NEA budget. But I'm guessing this won't go anywhere.

[flere-imsaho]

The 1998 Supreme Court decision is interesting in that it was Breyer, O'Connor & Scalia dissenting. I don't think you saw that very often.

Breyer's argument was that there are plenty of cases where Congress has legitimately delegated powers to other bodies and, in any event, there's nothing specifically in the Constitution against it.

I don't find Breyer's argument terribly convincing because I think it takes it out of context. When you delegate power from one branch to the other, you've inherently increased the power of one branch and upset the balance of power. Kennedy, writing a concurring opinion for the majority, said that the Act in question only served to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another." Of course, what's interesting about this exchange is that it showcases the crux of the difference between Breyer and Kennedy.

Scalia's dissent, however, is much of a muchness (to use a little-used phrase). His main argument, again, is that since Congress allows those who it gives money to, in fact, not spend all the money, Congress does, in fact, delegate some authority over cancellation of aspects of its appropriations. It should be clear to anyone what a leap this is.


The fact is, the line-item veto is one of those things that sounds really great when you explain it:

Q: How do you get 535 members of Congress (House, Senate) to produce legislation that isn't bogged down with crapload of pork-barrel?

A: You can't. Instead of having 535 people try to weed this stuff out, why not have one guy weed it out?


See? Sounds good. But it's hard to believe, as others have pointed out, that this wouldn't be used for partisan or cronyist reasons.

Also, I think it's pretty hard to believe that the Founding Fathers would have gone for something like this. They pretty explicitly wanted legislation to be created by Congress so the representatives of the people would actually have to work to come to a consensus on legislation. Placing that power (or a pretty good aspect of it) in the hands of one person gets away from a lot of their original thoughts.

Anyway, all a line-item veto would do in Washington's highly-partisan and highly-public environment would be to put an end to consensus-building and replace it with partisan sniping. Congress will lard up every bill it can, and the President will shoot down the stuff he doesn't like, or the stuff that wasn't added by his party-members, or the stuff that wasn't added by his friends. Yeah, Presidents should be above that stuff, but let's be honest here....


Of course, the funniest part of all this is that Bush is asking for this when his party controls all of Congress. If he's unable to work with his other party leaders to make sure reasonable appropriations legislation is crafted, then I'm not completely sure how a line-item veto is going to help him.

And he completely misses the point when talking about the States. For one, States have their own constitutions, which may or may not have the same needs the U.S. Constitution does. For two, States' legislatures are, by their very nature, more homogenous in their spending aims. But again, saying "Forty-three States have it!" sounds good.

[gstelmack]

I think it's odd that the president is pushing this because I think it would shift a greater burden of responsibility for deficit to the presidency and away from Congress. Right now, the president can say that his hands are tied and he has to go along with the pork or we're going to have to shut down the government without a budget.But the reality is that's not how it's going to work. Everyone blames the deficits on the President or gives him credit for the surpluses, not the Congress, regardless of which party is in charge. And the country at large looks to the President to set the financial tone for the country. Since he takes all the responsibility, why shouldn't he have more tools to carry it out?

[sterlingice]

Bush has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, but he said the line-item veto would help "reduce wasteful spending, reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."Holy crap. Is this accurate?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Holy crap. Is this accurate?

SI
Yep, that's accurate. Bush hasn't vetoed a thing.

[sterlingice]

Yep, that's accurate. Bush hasn't vetoed a thing.<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="2"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#eeeeee"><th>President</th> <th>Regular veto</th> <th>Pocket veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto)</th> <th>Total vetoes</th> <th>Vetoes overridden</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Total</td> <td align="center">1484</td> <td align="center">1065</td> <td align="center">2549</td> <td align="center">106</td> </tr> <tr> <td>George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton)</td> <td align="center">36</td> <td align="center">1</td> <td align="center">37</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)</td> <td align="center">29</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">44</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)</td> <td align="center">39</td> <td align="center">39</td> <td align="center">78</td> <td align="center">9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter)</td> <td align="center">13</td> <td align="center">18</td> <td align="center">31</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Gerald Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford)</td> <td align="center">48</td> <td align="center">18</td> <td align="center">66</td> <td align="center">12</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon)</td> <td align="center">26</td> <td align="center">17</td> <td align="center">43</td> <td align="center">7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Lyndon B. Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson)</td> <td align="center">16</td> <td align="center">14</td> <td align="center">30</td> <td align="center">0</td></tr></tbody></table>
Wow (source: wiki)

So, even tho he doesn't use a regular veto, he wants the line-item?

SI

[kcchief19]

But the reality is that's not how it's going to work. Everyone blames the deficits on the President or gives him credit for the surpluses, not the Congress, regardless of which party is in charge. And the country at large looks to the President to set the financial tone for the country. Since he takes all the responsibility, why shouldn't he have more tools to carry it out?I disagree with that contention. I think presidents have traditionally shifted the blame for deficits to another party or reason -- during the '80s, Reagan blamed the Democratic Congress. During the '00s, Bush blamed the war on terror. Carter blamed it on malaise. Nixon blamed it on Vietnam and Democrats. Johnson blamed it on poverty. And so on and so forth. Part of our problem is that Americans don't care enough about the deficit, but I would hazard that over the long run blame for deficits by the public would be shared equally by the president and Congress.

But if sole control over the budget deficit is in the president's hands, he will be tagged with everything. It will be the president's fault for every piece of pork in the budget. That's a huge burden to carry an re-election.

Presidents do have tools now, they are just too chicken to use them. I have a hard time accepting any modern president advocating for a line-item veto since they all traditional use the veto drastically less than their predecessors. They can veto any budget appropriation that comes their way until they think Congress gets it right. I realize that it is at some cost, but that's not necessarily a reason to dramatic shift the balance of powers.

[gstelmack]

I disagree with that contention. I think presidents have traditionally shifted the blame for deficits to another party or reason -- during the '80s, Reagan blamed the Democratic Congress. During the '00s, Bush blamed the war on terror. Carter blamed it on malaise. Nixon blamed it on Vietnam and Democrats. Johnson blamed it on poverty. And so on and so forth. Part of our problem is that Americans don't care enough about the deficit, but I would hazard that over the long run blame for deficits by the public would be shared equally by the president and Congress.I disagree. They may *try* to shift the blame, but the news reports and media and all the election rhetoric always place the blame *squarely* on the shoulders of whatever administration was in charge at the time.

Or to put it another way: if Congress is in charge of spending and the public knows this, why do the Presidents have to come up with other places to shift the blame to?

[Greyroofoo]

Its pretty easy to avoid vetoes when your party controls both the House and the Senate.

[ISiddiqui]

Its pretty easy to avoid vetoes when your party controls both the House and the Senate.
Carter's did as well, but he got in a good amount of vetos.

[SirFozzie]

The reason why Bush has not vetoed anything is because the saame party controls both elected branches of government (the White House, and both sides of Congress) so usually they have common viewpoints

[Greyroofoo]

Carter didn't get along with congress regardless of party

[Craptacular]

I know the Bush proposal does not include as powerful of a pen, but a Wis. Gov. Doyle line-item veto from last year takes the cake (at least from stories I'm familiar with). From a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article:

For instance, to increase a transfer from the transportation account to the general fund from $268 million to $427 million, he crossed out several sections of the budget. He took the "4" from a $484,000 streetscaping grant in the Village of Oregon, the "2" and the "7" from the years 2005-'07, two "0"s from references to specific laws, and four more "0"s from an $80,000 grant to Chippewa County for a pedestrian railroad crossing.He literally vetoed all but a couple of numbers from a few paragraphs of different budget items to get $427,000,000 for another.

Of course, from years past ...

When he was Attorney General, Jim Doyle helped Democratic lawmakers craft a constitutional amendment to rein in the almost unlimited veto powers that Wisconsin governors enjoy. "No one should be able to create new laws through the use of a veto," Doyle told a legislative panel considering the amendment in 1992. "As we all learned in our studies of good government, laws should be written by the Legislature and either approved or rejected by the governor."

Doyle took a similar tack when he was running for governor three years ago, telling a candidates' forum, "I don't think you should be able to go in and take a word out there and a word out here and create a whole new sentence."Gotta love politicians. :rolleyes:

[Buccaneer]

I like it in theory. In practice I think it could become too much of a political weapon.

Just as an example - let's say a Prez is up for re-election in the coming year. He needs swing states like Ohio and Florida. A spending bill comes before him with ridiculously wasteful public works projects scheduled for those two states. If he axes them, it costs him serious political capital. If he lets them slide, he curries favor.

Maybe I am being overly negative, but it just seems to open up avenues for abuse.
But Chris, that is exactly what we have now. Cutting out line items can only be a good thing. If the President was able to add in line items (for political favors, etc.), then I would see the argument.

[flere-imsaho]

But Chris, that is exactly what we have now. Cutting out line items can only be a good thing. If the President was able to add in line items (for political favors, etc.), then I would see the argument.

I disagree. If the line-item veto became a reality what you'd see would be Congress loading up bills with pork, and the President merely blowing away the ones he didn't like. The opportunities for collusion between a same-party President & Congress would be enormous.

[ISiddiqui]

Didn't even think of that. If the President line itemed a bunch of pork people may think the pork project was dead, but if Congress, knowing this and colluding with the President added double the amount of pork than they originally wanted, they could get all their pork and make it seem like there was no pork going on.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I disagree. If the line-item veto became a reality what you'd see would be Congress loading up bills with pork, and the President merely blowing away the ones he didn't like. The opportunities for collusion between a same-party President & Congress would be enormous.

It's obviously of no use when Congress and the President are of the same party. But when they're opposite parties line item vetoes can have some effect. And burn "consensus building" if consensus building means handing out federal tax dollars for bridges to nowhere. How far has our political process fallen that anyone would even argue that things like that are a beneficial part of the process? Let bills stand or fall on their merits, not on special interest bribery.

[Buccaneer]

Didn't even think of that. If the President line itemed a bunch of pork people may think the pork project was dead, but if Congress, knowing this and colluding with the President added double the amount of pork than they originally wanted, they could get all their pork and make it seem like there was no pork going on.
And the result would still be the same of what we have now. I still think it is better to err on the side of reduction than no/little chance of reduction because someday, it might become meaningful in some way. I think Colorado has line-item veto and under Gov Owens, it has worked well, if I recall correctly.

[flere-imsaho]

Broadly-speaking, I think we're agreeing (those in the last few posts) on the concept here, just not specifically the execution.

Specifically, I think we agree that pork-barrel is bad and that Congress in general does a crappy job of putting together "lean" legislation. My point, however, is that a line-item veto won't change that, it'll just shift stuff around.

As I've said above, in a same-party White House & Congress, the Congressional leaders will just let all the appropriations sail through, safe in the knowledge that the President will simply blow away the other party's pork. Contrast that to today, where Congress reaches some form of "consensus" through wrangling and dealing, depending on how large the majority is.

In a scenario where one party controls Congress and the other the White House, you'll see Congress make darn sure the President's party doesn't put pork in there, and you'll see numerous political image battles between the two branches over what gets passed and what doesn't. In this scenario without the line-item veto you either get stalemate (Clinton vs. Gingrich) or rampant collusion (Reagan & Tip O'Neill, i.e. "we let you spend, you don't veto our spending").

From a results standpoint, I don't see a lot of difference.

The root cause of the problem is, again, the continued crafting of bad legislation. I'm not sure how you fix that (well, I know how, but I don't know how realistically), but the line-item veto isn't going to fix it.

And again, I think there's a marked difference between using this on the Federal level and on the State level.

[wade moore]

Broadly-speaking, I think we're agreeing (those in the last few posts) on the concept here, just not specifically the execution.

Specifically, I think we agree that pork-barrel is bad and that Congress in general does a crappy job of putting together "lean" legislation. My point, however, is that a line-item veto won't change that, it'll just shift stuff around.

As I've said above, in a same-party White House & Congress, the Congressional leaders will just let all the appropriations sail through, safe in the knowledge that the President will simply blow away the other party's pork. Contrast that to today, where Congress reaches some form of "consensus" through wrangling and dealing, depending on how large the majority is.

In a scenario where one party controls Congress and the other the White House, you'll see Congress make darn sure the President's party doesn't put pork in there, and you'll see numerous political image battles between the two branches over what gets passed and what doesn't. In this scenario without the line-item veto you either get stalemate (Clinton vs. Gingrich) or rampant collusion (Reagan & Tip O'Neill, i.e. "we let you spend, you don't veto our spending").

From a results standpoint, I don't see a lot of difference.

The root cause of the problem is, again, the continued crafting of bad legislation. I'm not sure how you fix that (well, I know how, but I don't know how realistically), but the line-item veto isn't going to fix it.

And again, I think there's a marked difference between using this on the Federal level and on the State level.
I think you summed up my thoughts very well. I like what they're TRYING to do, but I don't necessarily have faith that it will happen.

[Easy Mac]

Is pork spending really a new thing? I don't believe its magically gotten out of control, I think we've just been a country long enough that we're running out of places for statues.

[flere-imsaho]

It's not new. The term itself was probably coined in the Civil War era. However, there's evidence to suggest it's grown significantly in size in the past 2-3 decades.

[Buccaneer]

It's not new. The term itself was probably coined in the Civil War era. However, there's evidence to suggest it's grown significantly in size in the past 2-3 decades.
or the number of years Sen. Byrd has been in the Senate.

[EagleFan]

Line item veto is not a good idea, regarless of party. Too much of a potential power shift.

Unless you are giving me the veto power, and while you're at it I would like legislative power and judicial power so we could have a country ruled by common sense and logic (granted that would scare the hell out of liberals). :D

[flere-imsaho]

Liberals would be happy to have a country ruled by common sense and logic. We've had so little of it in the past 6 years. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Liberals would be happy to have a country ruled by common sense and logic.

Now if only any of you libs knew what either of those things were or how they work ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Now if only any of you cons knew what either of those things were or how they work ;)

Fixed. ;)