line item veto: MORE executive power and MORE spending

[welshTerrier2]

we've been led to believe that if bush or his successors had a line item veto, the wasteful spending of Congress could be controlled with the slash of a President's pen ... "if those Congress critters can't live within their means, I'll have to do the job for them" ...

but that's not how this whole thing will really work ... it's a mirage that does nothing but give more power to the already uncontrolled Executive branch ...

imagine bush saying, if you don't explicitly authorize my NSA spying program, I'll cut out your "bridge to nowhere" ... in fact, I'll cut off every penny targeted for your state ... the line item veto creates an even worse quid pro quo situation than we already have ... with a line item veto, bush could say, put anything you want in the bill and i'll let it go through if you give me what i'm asking for ... it doesn't decrease spending, it increases spending and cedes more power to the WH ... it would allow the President to negotiate every item in every bill on a line by line basis ...

the current situation is not much better but at least selected provisions can sometimes slide by because they are part of a larger bill ... this has both positive and negative aspects ...

with the presence of a line item veto, Congressional negotiations (i'll give you this if you give me that) would be rendered meaningless ... Democrats, for example, might be able to push through funds for a childhood innoculation program if they go along with lessened disclosure requirements on smokestack emissions ... while the latter may be totally undesirable, at least the negotiating process remains intact and the minority party is able to make small gains on occasion ... but these negotiations would be rendered totally meaningless if the President could subsequently eliminate the Democratic side of the arrangement ... you'd end up with no innoculation program and more air pollution ... in other words, the line item veto would be a dagger in the back of the legislative process ... while "horse trading" arrangements in Congress may not be the best form of government, passing Congressional power to the Executive branch would be much worse ...

the line item veto is being falsely advertised as a budget cutter ... it will do no such thing and it will remove governmental power yet another step away from the American people ... Democrats need to be more outspoken about the dangers that this idea will bring and they need to start countering the sales pitch that's currently being promoted ...

[On the Road]

1. Hadn't Thought About the Blackmail Angle

that would be troubling.

A line-item veto is appealing in a lot of ways, at least to me. It certainly could be used to cut pork.

However, the law would have to be written in such a way that it could NOT be used against entire programs. You would never want the president to simply be able to veto funding for the EPA or Aid to Dependent Children.

[welshTerrier2]

3. "used to cut pork"

all this would do is give the WH more power ... yes, they could conceivably "cut pork" but they are far more likely to use it to get more pork for themselves ...

there's nothing in any line item veto proposal that requires spending reductions ...

[Telly Savalas]

7. You're right. The executive branch has enough power as is.

No need to tip the balance in its direction any further.

A better way to cut pork would be to have our buddies on Capital Hill quit proposing it in the first place.

[On the Road]

10. I Thought the Line Item Veto

was specifically targeted towards the veto of individual appropriations items. Thus it could not be used (directly at least) to increase spending.

I'm more familiar with how the concept has been discussed (which has some merit) rather than how the law was written.

[welshTerrier2]

11. i think you're missing my point

you are correct that a line item veto would not allow a President to "add" lines to a bill ... but that ignores how the legislative process and political pressure works ...

for example, a President could easily threaten to carve out line items of interest to any given legislator unless that legislator added a spending item requested by the WH ... it would allow a President to directly "buy" votes for his favorite spending items by agreeing not to eliminate items that various Congressman want left in the bill ...

so, to take a specific case, let's say Senator Porkbelly put a line item in a bill to build a new superhighway in his state ... and let's say the WH wanted a line item added to the bill to fund a project to put bush statues in all the national parks ... with a line item veto, the WH could easily get Senator Porkbelly to introduce the statue amendment in exchange for a promise from the WH not to delete his highway funding ... the result: spending increases as both provisions, which are both pure pork, get left in the bill ...

[On the Road]

12. I Can See That, But

presidents submit their own proposed budgets, and are much more likely to get what they want than an individual senator or congressman. Plus I would expect that a president would be likely to have broader concerns than simply spending federal dollars -- ANY federal dollars -- in a particular geographic area.

I agree - the potential for blackmail is there. The presidency doesn't need to be strengthened. But pork barrel legislation is a big issue, and it's worth exploring solutions.

[flaminbats]

15. pork barrel is work exploring solutions, not more problems

most of the pork barrel can be found in the Pentagon..and in other forms of defense spending. This administration spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined...and 9/11 happened under their watch?

Time to cut the pork this administration is putting into the military budget, and the line item veto will only help Republican waste..not stop it! Republicans are servants of

[dansolo]

14. But whose pork?

I would expect the line item to be used in the following manner:

1. Cut programs sponsered or supported by Democrats
2. Cut money that goes to blue states, so that Republicans can then attack the Democrats, hoping to shift them red (like what happened with Gray Davis in California and the so-called energy crisis)
3. As a means to keep any independent-minded Republicans in their place. (e.g. the threats being made for anyone who doesn't support Bush's wire-tapping)

[MadMaddie]

2. The Democrats must stand up to this.....

They just need to say No!!

[FrannyD]

4. Heard on C-span

That John Kerry was all for it. They all suck. I was gonna try to call so I could say I wouldn't trust Bush to line veto my grocery list let alone legislation. It is so unnecessary and asinine. Would be interesting to see the vote, what Dems vote for it.

[MadMaddie]

5. This is why his ass lost....

Where is his backbone....Why can't the Dems all stand up all at the same time and speak the same message!! It's not rocket science....the Repugs expect them to do nothing....and they deliver every time....

[confludemocrat]

13. Kerry's usual approach to Bush ploys: "me too! but I'd do it better"

his plan is to give Bush the line item veto but require a vote to confirm the veto, which wouldn't alleviate the hazards noted here. Thanks, Senator, glad you "got our back".

[welshTerrier2]

6. kick ...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. It's unconstitutional.

For now.

[wiggs]

9. Right on and well said. So, for the $10,000 question

Stipulating that dem leaders are generally as smart, as savvy, and as aware of Bush MO as the average DUr, why are some dems promoting line item veto at THIS time?

I assume by your post you won't be saying the LIV is a tool to cut pork, or that the LIV is a way to finally hold the pugs accountable. So then, in your opinion, why?

[Neil Lisst]

16. Bush with line item = Emperor Bush

Can you imagine?

Forget the legislature. HE alone decides what gets funded.

BULLSHIT!!