A Rather Weak Power for a Robust Executive
Like presidents from Ulysses Grant onwards, according to an Associated Press story appearing on the San Diego Union-Tribune website on March 6, President Bush called for a restoration of the line-item veto, a power that lets the president strike individual items from a bill without having to veto the entire measure.
However, the power that Bush is calling for will be different from the power briefly granted to President Clinton. Instead of being able to eliminate the item from the bill, the president would send that item along with any other items back to Congress for a vote. While the President can propose recissions under current law, Congress is able to ignore the proposal. Under this new line-item veto law, the Congress will be compelled to take a vote. Should a majority in each house of the Congress agree with the President, the cuts would take effect.
Bush defended his proposal by stating that 43 governors across the country have the line-item veto. The president also touted this modified line-item proposal's ability to reduce wasteful spending, which would reduce the budget deficit.
The president, who has yet to meet a piece of legislation he disliked enough to veto, until he threatened to veto any bills passed by Congress that would kill or dely the deal with Dubai Ports World, at least sounds as if he would use this modified line-item veto power.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and other conservative lawmakers are supporting Bush's proposal.
Lawmakers are busy tripping over themselves in response to this proposal, according to the story. The article states that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid as being opposed to this idea, although he supported a similar plan in 1995 when offered as a weaker alternative to the GOP version that Clinton enjoyed for two years.
Additionally, Bush's version was pushed by Democrats in the 1990s and John Kerry supported a similar approach during his presidential campaign. However, a proposal similar to this plan was defeated in the House two years ago, 237-174, with three quarters of the Democrats voting against. Tom DeLay, then the Majority Leader, and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, along with 87 other Republicans, also voted against.
Supporters of this plan echo Bush's opinion that shoving hometown projects and special-interest tax breaks has gotten out of control, especially in legislation in bills the president has little choice other than to sign.
It's curious that there seems to be many supporters in Congress on this issue. If the majority of Congress grants the president this power, then it is essentially telling America that they cannot control the legislation, so they need someone else to do it for them. This would be the same majority that could prevent these items from being passed in the first place!
It seems that Congress is our nation's largest nursery. They can make a mess, then expect the nanny to clean it up. Weren't there many in Congress that were supposed to be against nanny programs?
Finally, a majority in either the House or Senate would be able to override a weaker line-item veto. The members of Congress could behave badly in the Capitol Nursery, the nanny could then take away their toys, but those in the nursery could take the toys back with no consequences!
What the hell would be the point of this version of the line-item veto if the same majorities that passed these measures can also override the veto of their projects?
This proposal is severely flawed. This proposal would effectively do nothing, except perhaps a few projects that gain wide public attention and Congress agrees to cut the projects to avoid looking bad. Even the debacle over the two very expensive bridges in Alaska resulted in no real changes, including no consequences for the tantrum that Senator Ted Stevens threw on the Senate floor.
In essence, this proposal is a waste of paper and a waste of time. Its real value is in telling the American people that they are working on the problems when they do not have to do anything at all. If this was what President Bush had in mind when he said he would cut the deficit in half by 2009, then he needs to come up with a more substantial plan. Perhaps one that will actually obtain results.
However, the power that Bush is calling for will be different from the power briefly granted to President Clinton. Instead of being able to eliminate the item from the bill, the president would send that item along with any other items back to Congress for a vote. While the President can propose recissions under current law, Congress is able to ignore the proposal. Under this new line-item veto law, the Congress will be compelled to take a vote. Should a majority in each house of the Congress agree with the President, the cuts would take effect.
Bush defended his proposal by stating that 43 governors across the country have the line-item veto. The president also touted this modified line-item proposal's ability to reduce wasteful spending, which would reduce the budget deficit.
The president, who has yet to meet a piece of legislation he disliked enough to veto, until he threatened to veto any bills passed by Congress that would kill or dely the deal with Dubai Ports World, at least sounds as if he would use this modified line-item veto power.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and other conservative lawmakers are supporting Bush's proposal.
Lawmakers are busy tripping over themselves in response to this proposal, according to the story. The article states that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid as being opposed to this idea, although he supported a similar plan in 1995 when offered as a weaker alternative to the GOP version that Clinton enjoyed for two years.
Additionally, Bush's version was pushed by Democrats in the 1990s and John Kerry supported a similar approach during his presidential campaign. However, a proposal similar to this plan was defeated in the House two years ago, 237-174, with three quarters of the Democrats voting against. Tom DeLay, then the Majority Leader, and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, along with 87 other Republicans, also voted against.
Supporters of this plan echo Bush's opinion that shoving hometown projects and special-interest tax breaks has gotten out of control, especially in legislation in bills the president has little choice other than to sign.
It's curious that there seems to be many supporters in Congress on this issue. If the majority of Congress grants the president this power, then it is essentially telling America that they cannot control the legislation, so they need someone else to do it for them. This would be the same majority that could prevent these items from being passed in the first place!
It seems that Congress is our nation's largest nursery. They can make a mess, then expect the nanny to clean it up. Weren't there many in Congress that were supposed to be against nanny programs?
Finally, a majority in either the House or Senate would be able to override a weaker line-item veto. The members of Congress could behave badly in the Capitol Nursery, the nanny could then take away their toys, but those in the nursery could take the toys back with no consequences!
What the hell would be the point of this version of the line-item veto if the same majorities that passed these measures can also override the veto of their projects?
This proposal is severely flawed. This proposal would effectively do nothing, except perhaps a few projects that gain wide public attention and Congress agrees to cut the projects to avoid looking bad. Even the debacle over the two very expensive bridges in Alaska resulted in no real changes, including no consequences for the tantrum that Senator Ted Stevens threw on the Senate floor.
In essence, this proposal is a waste of paper and a waste of time. Its real value is in telling the American people that they are working on the problems when they do not have to do anything at all. If this was what President Bush had in mind when he said he would cut the deficit in half by 2009, then he needs to come up with a more substantial plan. Perhaps one that will actually obtain results.
posted by Will at 3:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home