Against The Line Item Veto

New blogger Pat Allen is interesting on the line item veto and its intersection with as-yet-unrepealed Law of Unintended Consequences:

...giving the President a line item veto will probably make things worse. Recently, there has been the start of an effort in Congress to get some control over earmarks. Some representatives and senators understand the problem and are using the power of publicity to try to limit earmarks. The "Bridge to Nowhere" has been stopped. It is a small start, but it is a start.

The line item veto proposal knocks the legs out from under this effort. Now the earmarkers will have the perfect response to the anti-earmark forces: Congress does not need to do anything to stop earmarks. The President has a line item veto. Since he can veto the wasteful projects, Congress does not need to do anything.

Go tell him what you think.

Comments

[Carol Herman]

Line-item veto is up there with "tightening of the money supply." Nothing brings on depression (and Depressions) faster.

The economy is HUGE. To dry it up you'd need more than slogans. WHich is also why algore is failing in his approach to scare us into "man made" weather changes. Where was man 10,000 years ago ... when big drifts of ice came down and carved mountains?

And, in Europe, where was all this technology, when the weather grew colder, and people died like flies?

We've still got people.

We still have to come to grips with running countries. And, why some individuals want to sit on top of the money supplies.

Here, I expect, Dennis Hastert will take a tumble. (Or will willingly relinquish his seat.) DeLay did. There' are good lives you can have after you've served at the public till.

And, if it's big enough there's no way you can run it on a small scale of supervision.

A long time ago, my mom discussed with me "welfare." She pointed out how it kept the middle class alive. How's that? You think those on welfare own anything? But they live in rented spaces; and they shop.

Greasing the wheels of industry is on par with celebrating Christmas. (A holiday that has religious significance at only one end. But if we curtail Christmas' function in the economy, things would look bleak for retailers.)

Some people see money. I see only grease. And, it's at is most inefficient when it sits in banks. Not used for investments. And, capital.

[Carol Herman]

Humph. That should have been NOT.

Money is NOT at it's most efficient when it's stored away in banks. You've got to risk it.

[Davebo]

The "Bridge to Nowhere" has been stopped.

Really?

As the result of public press and negative media attention, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) agreed to release the obligation that Alaska use the money earmarked in the transportation bill for the Bridge to Nowhere and Don Young's Way (formerly called Knik Arm Bridge). Alaska will still receive the money, however, and can, if it wishes, build one or both bridges.

[Lurker]

Davebo, if that's the case, then I will be emailing Frist, Cornyn, Hutchison, and Hastert that Alaska does NOT deserve this money.

[Rick]

Perhaps Alaska's governor and legislature can find a more rational and socially beneficial use for these funds--being as they're closer to the people--and resist the pressure from the AK porkers in Congress.

One can hope.

Cordially...

[Neo]

There used to be (I think they got rid of it) a wonderful rule/law/whatever in MN that said that the Governor had to sign a budget in the words of the Legislature.

This was contorted such that the Governor would cut up the entire budget submitted by the Legislature into words and numbers and rearrange them into the budget that suited his/her purposes. This usually included a page or two at the end of gobbly-gouk with all the remaining words and number that weren't used, but had to be included.

MN didn't fall off the map or go to join Canada so survival is possible.

[Barney Frank]

Davebo is correct lurker.
Moreover most earmarks are simply directives for money already appropriated. Defeating an earmark does not unappropriate the money it just falls back into the hog trough to get sucked up by some other pig.
That is why a line item veto could in fact be pretty handy, because any spending that is vetoed IS unappropriated, unless congress overrides.

[rrk]

I think he's daft.

How a governmental body of 535 members will reign itself in is the stuff of utter fantasy.

I know, he thinks it can be done anecdotally, by giving some pork project a clever name (e.g., Bridge to Nowhere) to isolate and kill it.

Ha ha ha! These projects number in the tens of thousands. While that particular approach might challenge vocabularies, Porky will have dulled everyone into a stupor before the next budget.

Anyone with a memory knows the anecdotal approach to budget regulation comes around like a comet every twenty or so years. It's here, then it's gone.

[Larry Jones]

Most earmarks are not technically "law" because they never actually appear in legislative language. Instead, they are tucked away in what is called "report" language, which serves to clarify provisions within legislative language. As such, the president already has the authority to not fund approximately 96 percent of all earmarks precisely because they are not legally binding.

[Christopher Fotos]

He's right. Now I will go tell him what I think.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Bush already has a de facto line item veto. It's called a presidential signing statement.

[Tony B]

Interested what you think about it. I think all it does is transfer the power to the executive branch. Don't think it would reign in the spending at all, just changes who makes the calls.

[Soylent Red]

Reagan was all for the line item veto. In my book you don't get a better endorsement than that.

[Wickedpinto]

The Congress has commenly abdigated it's responsibility of definition in many ways. The EPA, the FAA, the FCC, the TSA, the Congress has commonly said that executive entities are allowed regulatory, and definative powers.

I see no reason why granting that said same allowance, or priveledge onto the executive directly is any less constitutional than mike powell, saying janets nipple is worse, than Oprah's simple existence.

If you want to include a stop gap? Then the Dem's can call the 'pubs on their call that "if it's good for a 'pub pres, it's good for a dem pres" by automaticaly sunseting the veto based on the particular term of congress.

As soon as there is a new congress (every 2 years) the line item must be renewed. If a majority of the legislature will lend the authority of legislative oversite to the executive, then that should be right there with the dem's position, AND, isolated from the courts, since, the EXISTING legislature has allowed the power to the executive.

I find it odd, that the EPA is constitutional, but not the line item veto.

No sense what so ever. SPECIALLY since the line item "veto" isn't actually a veto, it's a specific item offered up as a clear up or down acknowledgment.

The court might think "the executive could innundate the legislature with extensive corraborative votes" but. . .well, the courts chose to ignore a lot of cases, why can't the congress?

[sophy]

We all love game, if you want to play it, please Buy metin2 gold and join us.

[sophy]

We all love game, if you want to play it, please Buy metin2 gold and join us.

[Atlantica Gold]

If you have enough Atlantica Gold, you can help others.

[buy Atlantica online Gold]

Which decision to buy Atlantica online Gold, that is so funny!