A Modest Proposal: The Line Item Veto

[John-in-KC]

Scouters,

 

I think over the past months most who know me at here know Im a conservative, Christian, most of the time Republican. I actively believe in God and Christ's saving work, BSA, America's youth, and our Constitution.

 

Tonight, I write this because I believe both the President and several senior Members of Congress are off in left field. Today, listening to All Things Considered on NPR, I heard a news blivet where President Bush wants a line item veto.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5246868

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5247305

 

You can use google news to find more as well.

 

Now, weve been there before. I know President Reagan asked for this authority, and President Clinton was the first to actually be granted it by the Congress. The US Supreme Court, however, found a line item veto unconstitutional.

 

As an irony, Senator Kerry is the one introducing the legislation into the Congress.

 

To me, Congress passing a line item veto is Congress surrendering part of the Constitutional separation of powers. The President has the right to veto but its a big, blunt instrument. It was designed that way deliberately by the Framers. They observed, often first-hand, the consequences of George III with-holding final enactment of legislation. The veto is a CHECK on Congress ability to pass legislation. The BALANCES are the all or nothing aspect of the veto, and the override provisions in Article I.

 

What does this have to do with BSA, you ask? I believe most of us are good citizens, and I believe many of us understand the theory of processes in our Government at least as well as the folks we elect. Suppose Congress, in the DOD and Army appropriations, includes $25 million for support of a National Jamboree. Imagine a future President, not supportive of Scouting, zeroes the line out. He signs a line item veto. ARE YOU CERTAIN BSA has a 2/3 super majority in the House (~292 votes). What about the Senate (67 votes)? In case you have questions, were talking about Article I, Section 7.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

I am against this shift of Constitutional authority without the full process of amending the Constitution. Whether you are or are not, I believe this is an issue worthy of contacting your Representative and Senators:

 

http://www.house.gov/writerep

 

http://www.senate.gov

 

Thank you for reading, and YIS, John

[GernBlansten]

Excellent point John in KC,

Line item veto is a double edged sword. Like the nuclear option to stop filibusters, it is great when your party is in power, but a real problem when you find yourself in the minority. Perhaps our founding fathers foresaw this and worded the constitution against such actions.

What our country needs a responsive congress to weed out the pork. Term limits are the answer. One term and out, Senate and House. No re-election. A peoples congress, like it was intended from the beginning. Remove the incentive to get re-elected and perhaps we will get a government by the people, for the people.

[LongHaul]

One term and out gets us people who don't know the job first hand and think about the cost. One term and retire at full pay with cost of living adjustments & medical for life. We need a lot of changes in the way Congress is run, it was never supposed to be a profession it was a service to your country. Hey I know let's give congress the same pay scale and benefit, retirement package we give the military.

Line item veto is just another way for the group in power to circumvent the checks and balances of the Constitution. Could it be that Kerry thinks the Republicans will lose next time around?

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Lisabob]

I suspect Kerry may be giving current admin the rope to hang themselves with (figuratively, of course). The longer this story plays, the dumber the admin looks for pushing this issue in a time where support for and trust in the admin is at all-time lows, even among many Republicans. Most Americans won't have any clue who sponsors it (and to a certain extent, it is irrelevant) but they will know that this is something Bush wants and they'll hear about him "losing" this "battle" in Congress too, all of which is good for the Dems.

 

This'll never pass Congress, let alone pass the Constitutional muster at the Supreme Court (if it were to become law and then be challenged). Kerry must know that. I'd have thought the Bush admin would know it too, because they tried this in his first term and were resoundingly defeated by a Republican-majority Congress then too.

 

Lisa'bob

[SR540Beaver]

Oh, let Bush have a line item veto. It won't make a whit of difference since he obviously doesn't have the slightest inkling of what the word means. What makes one think he would employee it anymore than he has a regular veto?

[scoutingagain]

Personally I'm in favor of a line item veto. Even for Bush. Anything that makes it more difficult for Congress to spend my money I regard as a good thing.

 

Sure the $25 million identified for the Jambo may go, but so will the other few $ billion in pork spending. Protecting pork barrel spending just so we don't lose our little piece of bacon is shortsighted.

 

As much as I'd like to see it, I agree with Lisa. This will never happen and is pure political gamesmanship. Since the mantle of fiscal responsibility has all but been blown away from the Republicans, the Dems are trying to set themselves up to make some claim to it, without actually having to do anything.

 

SA

[Kahuna]

I agree that the line-item veto can be misused, but it will help to cut out some pork. I support it.

 

As to the jamboree appropriation, the DOD buries those funds in their training, facility maintaining and other budgets.

[John-in-KC]

Kahuna,

 

I used Jamboree support as a working example.

 

I'm not necessarily against this; I want it fully debated in the public square before we trade so much power between the branches of government.

 

To me, that means amending the Constitution.

[LongHaul]

Does anyone really think Bush is going to cut pork, well maybe Democratic pork. As for clearing the USSC Bush has stacked it in his favor. I remember when he first got elected he said he wanted to revisit Roe V Wade and now with the S.D. law looks like he may get his chance. Line item reduces checks and balance, Congress passes what they think is a workable bill then one man "eliminates thinks out of context" and passes it as law, that's scarry. Just my opinion.

LongHaul

 

[packsaddle]

Give him the veto. He'll spell it with an 'e' at the end and never use it anyway. On the other hand, after what's already been done to the national debt, who cares about a few hundred billion more of pork anyway?

[SR540Beaver]

Who recalls the now famous line of "I voted for it before I voted against it" that was used to paint a politician as a flip flopper? That is why President's want line item veto. A bill starts out with great intentions and by the time it gets to it's final form, so much crap (pardon my French) has been attached to it that the original intent is lost. As an example, attaching legislation that makes it legal to pitchfork kids tacked onto legislation that helps pay tuition of children who lost a soldier parent to war. Sure you want to help the orphaned child, but you can't in good conscience approve pitchforking kids. A line item veto allows the President to cut out the tacked on crap and approve the worthwhile stuff. Of course, it only counts if your guy is holding the pen.

 

You know, another way to fix the problem without a line item veto is to not allow the pork barrel and pet project riders to be attached to a bill. Each has to stand or fall on their own.

[LongHaul]

What happens when instead of line vetoing pitch forking kids they person with the pen line vetos the tuition and we have a law allowing pitch forking kids which could never has gotten out of committee on it's own. Checks and Balance, a lot of thought went into the wording based on a lot of powerful people abusing thier power. The framers were still dealing with centuries of handed down experience with absolute rulers. They formed a plan to make sure "the people" were heard and could affect the laws governing them. Today we only remember what has happpened since that plan was put into action. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

LongHaul

[SR540Beaver]

Longhaul: They formed a plan to make sure "the people" were heard and could affect the laws governing them.

 

That seldom happens today. I find that few politicians really represent my needs. I don't think our Forefathers had to deal too much with PAC's, Lobbyists and special interest groups bribing congressmen to circumvent the will of the people.

[GernBlansten]

Hence my call for single term limits. No retirement, no career politicians. Remove some of the incentive to bribe, since they will only be there one term. Pass laws that allow citizens to put their day jobs on hold, return to them when they finish their service. Like jury duty, just longer.

[Kahuna]

Term limits are the only way of going back to the kind of government the framers intended. And, the only way to do it is by limiting to one term, possibly two for Representatives, pay them a decent salary, maybe provide them medical care and a military style home for the duration of their term and then, at the end, give them a plaque with the thanks of their nation and a plane ticket back home.

 

Sadly, none of this will ever happen. The Constitution would have to be amended and guess who does that? Right.