It passed the House yesterday:
WASHINGTON - President Bush would receive greater power to try to kill "pork barrel" spending projects under a bill passed Thursday by the House.
Lawmakers voted to give Bush and his successor a weaker version of the line-item veto law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998, despite a recent series of lopsided votes in which they've rallied to preserve each other's back-home projects. The new power would expire after six years.
The idea advances amid increasing public concern about lawmakers' penchant for stuffing parochial projects into spending bills that the president must accept or reject in their entirety.
The House passed the bill by a 247-172 vote. Thirty-five Democrats joined with most Republicans in voting for the bill; 15 Republicans opposed the measure and others voted for the bill despite private reservations.
It still needs Senate approval before it can be sent off to the President for signature - but I'm not too sure of the Constitutionality of this measure. From what the news story goes on to say, the provisions of this line item veto are that a simple majority of both Houses - rather than the Constitutional 2/3 majority - will suffice to overturn a Presidential line item veto. Any Constituitonal scholars out there want to opine on whether that passes muster?
A line item veto is a good thing, but I'm not sure this is the way to go about it - what seems to be happening here is an attempt at a soft line-item veto which will somehow skirt 'round the Supreme Court's rejection of same back in the Clinton Administration. I don't see how this will work - much better to just pass the real thing, and then add a provision excluding the operation of the line item from Federal judicial scruitiny (as provided for in the Constituiton which states that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction as regulated by the Congress).
Posted by Mark Noonan at June 23, 2006 01:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/whitehouse.cgi/7368
Comments
Unfortunately, I believe this will be considered unconstitutional; and rightly so. Why can't Congress (members of both parties) reign in spending on their own? The President has only a few options, sign it, veto it, let it become law without signing it or pocket veto a law.
I think it's incumbent upon Congress to create a biennial budget and stick to it, get rid of emergency spending with a simple majority to pass and become thrifty.
Anything to keep the budget process out of the courts is the way to go.
Posted by: Will at June 23, 2006 02:12 PM
Line item veto is a great idea. Chances are most pork will be eliminated, which is what happened at the state level. Governors in 43 states already have the line item veto.
It is worth pointing out that most Democrats voted against the veto, and the same was true when Clinton was President.
Posted by: marko at June 23, 2006 05:22 PM
A veto is a veto is a veto. This bill, if it becomes law, will not pass Constitutional muster on this matter, if not others. Apparently, Congress has forgotten this little matter.
The only way a line item veto will be added to the President's designated authority will be if THE PEOPLE demand, through 34 state legislatures, that Congress call a Constitutional Convention.
Posted by: Macker at June 23, 2006 08:39 PM
The most obvious benefit of a line item veto is that the president could excise those tacked-on spending additions without vetoing an entire bill.
But the other benefit that comes to mind is that of getting legislation back to legislating, and out of the business of simply getting reelected, and/or setting political snares.
Now, if----and I am inventing a scenario here----a crucial national security measure comes before Congress, and in its passage through the houses gets laden with unrelated spending bills, the president has some very difficult choices. One is to veto the entire bill, thereby slowing the development of plans and procedures he thinks are critical to the security of the country. One is to veto the bill and know the veto will be used against him politically, calling him inconsistent for example for promoting certain legislation and then vetoing it when it gets to his desk. And one is to sign it, taking into account the greater good but at the same time allowing vast amounts of dollars to be spent on pork.
Any wholesale veto is a massive waste of time and energy and of Congress. Over the years, the function of congressmen has become more to get reelected than to legislate for the good of the country, and it takes dumping dollars back into the constituency to get reelected.
At least an effort to get a line item veto passed, and the subsequent debate on its constitutionality, might get an amendment movement started.
Posted by: Almiranta at June 23, 2006 09:36 PM
I wonder if this one is found to be constitutional. It seems kind of superfluous with Bush though; he already uses signing statements to change the impliment of legislation (McCain torture ban anyone?)
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at June 24, 2006 12:10 AM
I actually expect that the current court may uphold the bill - but I could see it going either way.
In any case, I think this type of line item veto is ineffective to the point of being pretty worthless - the process of gaining support for any substantive bill tends to entail legislative bargaining, and oftentimes that includes pork-riders added to bills. If congress needs to vote on the new bill after the line-item veto has been applied, all those representatives who only signed onto the bill for their pet projects will not support the vetos.
What we really need is simple in theory, but difficult in practice: restraint. The congressional leadership can't let the type of pork barrel spending we've been seeing get into unrelated bills.
Irregardless of the constitutionality of line-item vetos, it's the only way for effective government to work...
Posted by:
winnowhead at June 24, 2006 04:08 AM
It appears that this one may actually pass muster and not be deemed unconstitutional by the Supremes. The last time it was because, the way it was written, the bill effectively transfered constitutional authoritity of Congress to the President...no can do without a consitutional ammendment.
This bill extends the recision power of the President, but retains the right of Congress to override the recision. It would expose the pork that was rescinded to the light of day, and then Congress would have to vote openly to approve specific pork packages, that are now buried in legislation passed by Congress.
Posted by: phnxbmed at June 24, 2006 06:42 AM
If congress was only able to pass single issue bills the line item veto wouldn't be an issue. The president would not have to make the decision to veto a whole bill based on a tacked on part. Of course this assumes that the president would actually veto a bill.
Posted by: question all at June 24, 2006 06:25 PM
I'm still on the fence as to whether or not a line item veto is a good thing.
On the one hand, it would allow the elimination of ridiculous pork, and possibly other bad add-ons of various sorts.
On the other hand, I saw an argument the last time this was brought up that I thought was valid... the president (whomever that might be at the time), COULD use the line item veto to benefit allies and punish opponents by picking and choosing which pork to let through. I do think that would be politically suicidal, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen... and I'm certain that the charge would be levelled whenever the line item veto was used, regardless of whether or not it was being used capriciously.
I do wish there was some way to isolate those involved from undue influence... to insure that they heard all the arguments and voted based on what they believed was right and what they believed was wrong, rather than cutting deals with one another and obstructing just for the sake of obstructing.
There's no way I can think of to accomplish that, nor do I think if there was that those who had the power to enact such a thing would choose to do so, because it would not be in their own best interest, even if it is in the best interest of the nation.
The only reasonable way to curtail it I can think of is to enact term limits, but again, I seriously doubt that will ever happen, because the ones who have to vote on it are the ones who would be most against the idea.
Posted by: LNC at June 25, 2006 11:16 PM
Post a comment
Unfortunately, I believe this will be considered unconstitutional; and rightly so. Why can't Congress (members of both parties) reign in spending on their own? The President has only a few options, sign it, veto it, let it become law without signing it or pocket veto a law.
I think it's incumbent upon Congress to create a biennial budget and stick to it, get rid of emergency spending with a simple majority to pass and become thrifty.
Anything to keep the budget process out of the courts is the way to go.
Line item veto is a great idea. Chances are most pork will be eliminated, which is what happened at the state level. Governors in 43 states already have the line item veto.
It is worth pointing out that most Democrats voted against the veto, and the same was true when Clinton was President.
A veto is a veto is a veto. This bill, if it becomes law, will not pass Constitutional muster on this matter, if not others. Apparently, Congress has forgotten this little matter.
The only way a line item veto will be added to the President's designated authority will be if THE PEOPLE demand, through 34 state legislatures, that Congress call a Constitutional Convention.
The most obvious benefit of a line item veto is that the president could excise those tacked-on spending additions without vetoing an entire bill.
But the other benefit that comes to mind is that of getting legislation back to legislating, and out of the business of simply getting reelected, and/or setting political snares.
Now, if----and I am inventing a scenario here----a crucial national security measure comes before Congress, and in its passage through the houses gets laden with unrelated spending bills, the president has some very difficult choices. One is to veto the entire bill, thereby slowing the development of plans and procedures he thinks are critical to the security of the country. One is to veto the bill and know the veto will be used against him politically, calling him inconsistent for example for promoting certain legislation and then vetoing it when it gets to his desk. And one is to sign it, taking into account the greater good but at the same time allowing vast amounts of dollars to be spent on pork.
Any wholesale veto is a massive waste of time and energy and of Congress. Over the years, the function of congressmen has become more to get reelected than to legislate for the good of the country, and it takes dumping dollars back into the constituency to get reelected.
At least an effort to get a line item veto passed, and the subsequent debate on its constitutionality, might get an amendment movement started.
I wonder if this one is found to be constitutional. It seems kind of superfluous with Bush though; he already uses signing statements to change the impliment of legislation (McCain torture ban anyone?)
I actually expect that the current court may uphold the bill - but I could see it going either way.
In any case, I think this type of line item veto is ineffective to the point of being pretty worthless - the process of gaining support for any substantive bill tends to entail legislative bargaining, and oftentimes that includes pork-riders added to bills. If congress needs to vote on the new bill after the line-item veto has been applied, all those representatives who only signed onto the bill for their pet projects will not support the vetos.
What we really need is simple in theory, but difficult in practice: restraint. The congressional leadership can't let the type of pork barrel spending we've been seeing get into unrelated bills.
Irregardless of the constitutionality of line-item vetos, it's the only way for effective government to work...
It appears that this one may actually pass muster and not be deemed unconstitutional by the Supremes. The last time it was because, the way it was written, the bill effectively transfered constitutional authoritity of Congress to the President...no can do without a consitutional ammendment.
This bill extends the recision power of the President, but retains the right of Congress to override the recision. It would expose the pork that was rescinded to the light of day, and then Congress would have to vote openly to approve specific pork packages, that are now buried in legislation passed by Congress.
If congress was only able to pass single issue bills the line item veto wouldn't be an issue. The president would not have to make the decision to veto a whole bill based on a tacked on part. Of course this assumes that the president would actually veto a bill.
I'm still on the fence as to whether or not a line item veto is a good thing.
On the one hand, it would allow the elimination of ridiculous pork, and possibly other bad add-ons of various sorts.
On the other hand, I saw an argument the last time this was brought up that I thought was valid... the president (whomever that might be at the time), COULD use the line item veto to benefit allies and punish opponents by picking and choosing which pork to let through. I do think that would be politically suicidal, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen... and I'm certain that the charge would be levelled whenever the line item veto was used, regardless of whether or not it was being used capriciously.
I do wish there was some way to isolate those involved from undue influence... to insure that they heard all the arguments and voted based on what they believed was right and what they believed was wrong, rather than cutting deals with one another and obstructing just for the sake of obstructing.
There's no way I can think of to accomplish that, nor do I think if there was that those who had the power to enact such a thing would choose to do so, because it would not be in their own best interest, even if it is in the best interest of the nation.
The only reasonable way to curtail it I can think of is to enact term limits, but again, I seriously doubt that will ever happen, because the ones who have to vote on it are the ones who would be most against the idea.