Stop me before I spend again

March 7, 2006

The Bush White House has included the idea of a line-item veto power in each of its federal budgets, but this year, the Bush gang seems serious about it. I don’t have a philosophical problem with the tool, but I think it’s rather amusing that this president — who has increased federal spending more than any chief executive since LBJ — believes he should be taken seriously on the issue.

Bush now wants the power to limit spending by vetoing parts of appropriations bills, after using his veto pen exactly zero times since taking office in 2001. In other words, Bush isn’t inclined to use his regular ol’ presidential power; he wants a special, extra-constitutional gimmick that helps him re-write congressional spending bills.

The Bush White House could, of course, tell Congress to spend less. If lawmakers ignore the president’s request, he could veto their bills. Why hasn’t that happened? A reporter posed the question to Scott McClellan yesterday. He responded:

“I think the President has talked about it previously under the way things currently are structured. I think it’s difficult to do that when Congress acts to meet the level the President has called for in the budget. And Congress has acted to fund the priorities that the President has called for, and then to exercise spending restraint elsewhere in the budget.”

It’s a telling comment. The White House has asked for certain spending parameters, and Congress has, by and large, followed them. As McClellan suggested, Bush can’t very well start vetoing spending bills when lawmakers are giving the president what he asked for.

But McClellan said, pesky members of Congress keep trying to “slip by in the middle of the night special interest” earmarks. What’s a powerless chief executive to do?

It’s really not complicated — Bush could announce he’d veto spending bills that include what he sees as wasteful pork. He could even follow through on his commitment if Congress declined to take his advice. None of this has happened because — news flash –the Republican White House and the Republican Congress simply aren’t serious about fiscal responsibility.

I’m not completely opposed to the concept of the line-item veto; I just wish public officials in DC gave responsible governing a shot before embracing gimmicks that may not withstand Supreme Court scrutiny.

He’s just seeding the garden for the post-administration excuses.

“I would’ve contolled the deficit, but no-one gave me the line-item veto.”

will join

“I didn’t lose Iraq, the media did.”

  • The line item veto was passed by Congress during Clinton’s tenure, but would not take effect until 2001, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

    Fine, Congress can pass it again, but it can’t take effect until 2009 and the Supreme Court can hear it again.

    Groundhog Day!

  • Personally, I think this issue, and the timing of it, has more to do with the fairly strong chance that the Dems may take the House this year than anything else. Right now, most spending is probably benefiting GOP folks, causes, issues, etc. That is OK to the current group of hypocrites. No need to try and limit this at the moment as they think they can get the best of both worlds–GOP congressmen get the pork they want/need and the President can chastise them on occassion, sounding tough but doing nothing. However, if the Dems do take control, then the spending will probably primarily benefit Dems and that is verboten. Typical GOP double standards and hypocrisy.

  • The only time I get any pleasure from hearing the Chimperor speak is when I get a laugh. It happened today when I heard the words “fiscal responsibility” come out of his mouth.
    Too bad his followers live in some fantasy world. The last time I spoke to one, I mentioned the fiscal mess they have made for us. His answer? Well, cut more taxes, of course!
    Out of respect, I did not tell him that no magic remained in that wand.

    By the way, I feel that this is a case of:
    What’s happening in Iraq?
    Look over here, folks, it’s something shiny!
    And the crowd goes “Ooooh.”

  • Bush is looking for more ways to threaten and bully congressmen. Knowing your pork will get axed if you don’t toe the administration line will give a lot of congressmen cause. The last thing I want to see congress do is give Chimpy more power he can abuse.

    Personally, I think the LIV is a bad idea. Bill are often crafted as a compromise. The bad example of that is pork — you get your super highway and I get some federal contracts, so we both vote for the bill. The better example is a bill in which I only agree to authorize money for continued military operations in Iraq if you agree to allocate money to rebuild the infrastructure there. In both those examples, a deal I struck could have one half of the agreement voided by action of a 3rd party. If that happens, I would want the opportunity to retract my support for the other side of the bargain. In other words, if the president vetoes any part of a bill, the entire bill should be returned to congress, which is of course what we have today with a regular veto.

  • They just needed something to talk about other than their many scandals.

    (It’s not going to happen, but for the record, I’m against it — we might as well elect a king if we’re going to give a president that kind of an ability to hand out favors to congressmen who vote his way and withhold favors from those who don’t.)

  • Considering the Supreme Court’s holding in Clinton v. City of New York, it’s hard to see how anything remotely resembling a line-item veto would fly.

    In Clinton, the Court found that as to a billed passed by Congress, Article I, section 7 of the Constitution gives the President two options: either sign it, or veto it. Nothing more; nothing less.

    The Court also specifically noted that it “does not lightly conclude that the actions of the Congress that passed it, and the President who signed it into law, were unconstitutional. The Court has, however, twice had full argument and briefing on the question and has concluded that its duty is clear. … If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role, such change must come through the Article V amendment procedures.”

    All things considered, it sure sounds like what the Court said in Clinton is that if anyone wants to give the President line-item veto authority, the only way it’s gonna happen is with a Constitutional amendment.

  • Any power in the hands of Bush is a bad idea, but especially this one which would draw lobbyists like flies.

  • Shargash got it in one.

    Congress is giving Bush more and more grief, and a line-item veto would be the tool Rove would suggest to bring Congress back into line.

  • I don’t understand what all the hubbub is about.

    Doesn’t the Commander-in-Chief already have the power of line item veto in time of war?? Plus, the Congress expressly told the Pres that he can do whatever he wants when they passed the post-9/11 measure on terrorism.

    Start vetoing lines today, Mr. Bush!! No…no…veto doesn’t mean put them up your nose…

  • I am glad I am not the only one remembering that the line item veto is unconstitutional. I think this is just another non-issue distraction to make us forget about wire tapping and an unjust war. Even if it could, Congress would not give this stupid man any more power this year with elections on the horizon. But perhaps I am givng Congress too much credit, maybe they are so detached that they have lost their basic self preservation instinct.

  • No, really, this is great.

    Bush will push another hopeless domestic agenda (private accounts for social security, anyone???) and the Republican Congress will repudiate him.

    Works fine for me.

  • The problem with the line item veto was that it would place most of the power of the purse in the hands of the president, with the legislature doing nothing more then submitting glorified spending proposals. A way to divide the responsibility would be to break the bills into their constituent ‘line items’ and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Then re-assemble them in order of preference and have the president draw the line between what is funded and what is not. While the buck would stop with the president, in lieu of a veto over-ride, everything getting over 66% approval would pass automatically. Not only would this break up the budgetary log jams, but it would take away a lot of the power the legislative leadership has accrued to itself and return it to the level of the individual legislators. Specific proposals would have to appeal to the broad spectrum of legislators, not just a few power brokers. It would require the leadership to lead by inspiration, not just herd the rest around like so many cattle. The time is coming when this country will have to limit its spending and some method of prioritizing the budget will be essential.

  • This is probably all of the above: preparation of a handy excuse for Little Lord Fauntleroy to use against critics (“I couldn’t control the pork without a line item veto”), a preemptive attempt to get a tool to use against a possible Dem congress, a distraction, and so on. But given the way the administration construes laws, I wouldn’t put it past them to construe passage of a line-item veto as a blanket permission to rewrite bills in their entirety.

    • Comments are closed.