by Matt Barr

Line item "veto," not so much

The line item veto is unconstitutional as that device is commonly understood. What President Bush has proposed isn't one, so it would pass constitutional muster (I always giggle when I write or read that phrase), but it's still not a good idea.

As explained by Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolten:

[T]he Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006 ... provides the President the authority to single out wasteful discretionary or mandatory spending, or special interest tax breaks given to a small number of individuals and to put them on hold. During the time that the spending line-item is on hold, the President can send legislation to Congress to rescind the line-item. The legislation under the statute would be considered within 10 days of introduction on an up or down basis without amendments and could be passed by a simple majority and could not be filibustered.

This authority would allow the President to hold up to the full light of public scrutiny wasteful spending that might have been passed as part of larger legislation. As you all are undoubtedly aware, spending legislation usually comes to the President in the form of very large bills, many of them with tens of billions of dollars of spending in them. And it is not sufficient for them to have authority merely to veto the entire bill. This would give him the opportunity to line out specific items of wasteful or unnecessary spending.

The havoc a President could wreak on Congresspersons of the opposite party is obvious, but not really worth troubling ourselves over. In practice, the President wouldn't antagonize the other party -- being baldfacedly partisan like that would hurt the president and Congresspersons of his party -- but neither would he want to antagonize states with electoral value. If President Bush had had this power in 2004, do you think he would have line-item "vetoed" any earmarks bound for Florida or Ohio? Or this year. Does a Republican president risk making a Republican senator up for re-election vote to keep his state's wasteful, budget-bloating earmarks?

The leverage a line item veto -- which is better understood as a state, or Congressperson, veto -- gives the executive over Congress could be staggering. Publicly calling bullshit on an earmark and making Congress vote it up or down individually is really as much effective power as the actual line item veto was, which was struck down as an unconstitutional grant of legislative power to the president. All the problems, but with extra constitutional muster. (!)

If it's a good idea to let the president review line items and decide whether they should be individually considered as legislation, then it's a good idea to have spending provisions all voted on individually to begin with. The only possible objection to this is: Congress wouldn't have time, there are too many line items. To which I say, good, either work harder, giving you less time to pass other busybody laws, or, better yet, spend less.

Imagine now a president committed to reining in Congressional spending. (It's hard, but try.) Say it's a Reaganite Republican with a majority Democrat Congress, on the theory that if the GOP were in the minority again in Congress it would remember it's supposed not to like big spending. Why wouldn't the president "veto" every line item? In which case you're back -- or forward -- to considering every line item as an individual bill.

The proposed scheme depends on an amicable, scratch-my-back relationship between Congress and the president, which hasn't historically existed very often. And even when it's "working," "veto" decisions are going to be made on a state and Congressperson basis, not based on the wisdom of the spending. Forget this non-veto "veto" and make Congress pass each line item individually to begin with.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
constitution veto+power pork