House Passes Not-Quite-Line-Item-Veto Legislation
Hmm...
I like the idea of giving the executive branch more power to block spending, but an actual line item veto (where the President vetoes certain portions of legislation and accepts others) is explicitly unconstitutional (it is the Chief Executive's job to approve or deny legislation, not change it). This is an alternative, I guess, but not a very good one.
This "veto" power (as I pointed out before) is nothing more than a ten day delay that can initiated by the President and ended by another vote in Congress. This may allow the President to call more attention to legislation or spending he finds objectionable, but I doubt that a ten day delay is going to do much to deter our determined spenders in Congress.
I still think the better option here would have been to give the President back the ability to impound funds. Every President from John Adams to Richard Nixon had the ability to "impound" funds appropriated for expenditure by Congress. You see, the Constitution states that Congress has the power to appropriate funds for expenditure but it does not say that those funds must actually be spent. The U.S. Treasury is a department in the Executive branch of our government, and the Secretary of the Treasury is appointed by the President. Thus the chief executive can simply order the Treasury not to provide funds for specific programs.
This power was, unfortunately, taken away from the Executive branch with the passage of the 1974 Budget Act by what was arguably the most liberal Congress in the history of this country in response to President Nixon impounding some 4% of all spending appropriated by Congress in order to reduce deficits.
Now would be an opportune time to repeal the Budget Act and give the President this power back. Rep. John Boehner, who was just elected House Majority Leader, has expressed support for "blowing up" the Budget Act. If this were to happen the President would have what would effectively be a Constitutional version of the line-item veto, and a better weapon to combat objectionable spending than a sissy ten day delay.
(via Mary Katharine Ham)
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.
The measure must still pass the Senate, and that's by no means a certainty.
I like the idea of giving the executive branch more power to block spending, but an actual line item veto (where the President vetoes certain portions of legislation and accepts others) is explicitly unconstitutional (it is the Chief Executive's job to approve or deny legislation, not change it). This is an alternative, I guess, but not a very good one.
This "veto" power (as I pointed out before) is nothing more than a ten day delay that can initiated by the President and ended by another vote in Congress. This may allow the President to call more attention to legislation or spending he finds objectionable, but I doubt that a ten day delay is going to do much to deter our determined spenders in Congress.
I still think the better option here would have been to give the President back the ability to impound funds. Every President from John Adams to Richard Nixon had the ability to "impound" funds appropriated for expenditure by Congress. You see, the Constitution states that Congress has the power to appropriate funds for expenditure but it does not say that those funds must actually be spent. The U.S. Treasury is a department in the Executive branch of our government, and the Secretary of the Treasury is appointed by the President. Thus the chief executive can simply order the Treasury not to provide funds for specific programs.
This power was, unfortunately, taken away from the Executive branch with the passage of the 1974 Budget Act by what was arguably the most liberal Congress in the history of this country in response to President Nixon impounding some 4% of all spending appropriated by Congress in order to reduce deficits.
Now would be an opportune time to repeal the Budget Act and give the President this power back. Rep. John Boehner, who was just elected House Majority Leader, has expressed support for "blowing up" the Budget Act. If this were to happen the President would have what would effectively be a Constitutional version of the line-item veto, and a better weapon to combat objectionable spending than a sissy ten day delay.
(via Mary Katharine Ham)
