Reply
Tue 23 Nov, 2004 03:39 pm
Is a line item veto necessary to control a pork loving fiscally irresponsible congress?
Pork v the deficit
Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the November 23, 2004 edition
Trimming Congress's Bacon Fat
Congress "porked out" at record levels this year, with some 10,656 pork projects totaling $22.9 billion - a 13 percent increase over last year, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.
Alaska was the biggest recipient of pork in the giant $388 billion omnibus spending bill that passed last week. Take $900,000 for an aquarium in Ketchikan or $950,000 for a rec center in Anchorage, as just two examples.
Yet one tested way to keep individual members of Congress from loading pork into spending bills (thus adding to the deficit) is to give the president the ability to cross out these items when they come to his desk for approval.
In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, even though they knew their rival, Bill Clinton, would be the first president to use it. In 1997, Mr. Clinton used the line-item veto 82 times, cutting some $2 billion in the process.
But in 1998, the Supreme Court struck down the Act, noting the Constitution specifies that legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented in its entirety to the president. Another high court concern: The line-item veto gives the executive branch increased power over the purse - Congress's domain.
Historically, presidents have had more power over funding than now, and one way to achieve at least similar results to the line-item veto would be to live up to the spirit of that precedent.
Beginning with Thomas Jefferson and up through Richard Nixon, a president enjoyed "impoundment" power, or the ability to not spend money if he didn't find it in the national interest. But a liberal spending Congress didn't like Nixon using it, and took the power away.
Still, Congress allowed the president an option known as "rescission." This works a bit like a line-item veto: The president rescinds the pork, but sends the entire bill back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. The option is weaker than a line-item veto because Congress can override the spending cuts with a simple majority.
Congress could create a constitutionally acceptable substitute for the line-item veto by giving the president "enhanced rescission" authority. The simple-majority override would still apply, but "enhanced" authority would at least speed up Congress, requiring it to act on a president's cuts within 60 days, or else they take effect.
Many lawmakers are pressing President Bush to bring down the deficit. That might set the stage for passing at least some version of a line-item veto. In fact, Mr. Bush recently indicated he's interested in reviving the idea. With the nation's debt at $7.38 trillion and growing, he should.
I understand the concern that allowing the president a line item veto is crossing over into Congress's territory, something has got to be done. If this president would use his veto power once, just once, he would at least send the message to Congress that the federal money spicket is no longer wide open.
I favor the line item veto. But there is currently no provision in the Constitution that allows it. Maybe we need to float another amendment?
did someone say bacon? mmmm....
Just getting rid of omnibus bills would likely have the same effect, without a constitutional ammendment. Of course, it would require congress to be responsibly enough to vote for a messure dis-allowing omnibus bills, so I don't see it happening any time soon.
Idaho wrote:Just getting rid of omnibus bills would likely have the same effect, without a constitutional ammendment. Of course, it would require congress to be responsibly enough to vote for a messure dis-allowing omnibus bills, so I don't see it happening any time soon.
Yup! A line item veto would leave the sitting President with the ability to pick and choose which pork projects they want to keep or get rid off.
I'd much rather do away with the omnibus bills and make the supporters of each program stand up and justify why taxpayers $$ should be spent on their pet projects.
Nov 24, 9:08 AM EST
AP: Deficit Hasn't Tamed Appetite for Pork By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Austerity in big-ticket government programs hasn't dulled lawmakers' appetite for special interest spending items that curry favor back home.The spending plan awaiting President Bush's signature is packed with them, doling out $4 million for an Alabama fertilizer development center, $1 million each for a Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle and a "Wild American Shrimp Initiative," and more, much more.Despite soaring deficits, lawmakers from both parties who approved the $388 billion package last weekend set plenty of money aside for home-district projects like these, knowing they sow goodwill among special interests and voters.They also raised the ire of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a pork-barrel critic who took to the Senate floor to ask whether shrimp are so unruly and lacking initiative that the government must spend $1 million on them.
"Why does the U.S. taxpayer need to fund this `no shrimp left behind' act?" he asked.Among items in the package: $335,000 to protect North Dakota's sunflowers from blackbirds, $2.3 million for an animal waste management research lab in Bowling Green, Ky., $50,000 to control wild hogs in Missouri, and $443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food.Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, won dozens of special items for his state - enough to fill 20 press releases.In one aimed at northern Alabama, Shelby took credit for the $4 million budgeted for the International Fertilizer Development Center. "In addition to the important research conducted at this facility, the facility employs numerous Muscle Shoals-area residents," he noted.
Government watchdog Frank Clemente contends such special spending - often based more on a lawmaker's clout on appropriations committees than on objective factors such as a state's population - winds up costing even those who win a new road, park or research project."I think that's the biggest unfortunate thing about these special earmarks - they eat up billions of dollars," said Clemente, spokesman for Public Citizen. "Meanwhile they're cutting billions of dollars for environmental programs, or education programs or cops on the beat or what have you. That's kind of the unintended effect or the secret effect of these programs."The time-honored practice flourished despite the ballooning national debt, less money for federal programs and rising concern about how government will finance the futures of Medicare and Social Security.When Bush first took office, he vowed to cut pet projects from the federal budget, but the president has yet to veto a single spending bill. He is expected to sign the new plan as well.Within hours of the spending bill's passage, lawmakers were touting the projects they brought home to constituents - a reminder that in federal budgets what is derided as pork-barrel spending by one constituency can be embraced by another as local assistance.Missouri Republican Sens. Kit Bond and Jim Talent and Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson on Monday announced federal money for three-dozen projects in southern Missouri, including $50,000 for wild-hog control.Ohio Reps. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat, and Steven LaTourette, a Republican, boasted about $350,000 for music education programs at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland.Nicole Williams, a spokeswoman for Tubbs Jones, said another lawmaker requested the money but Tubbs Jones supported it. With a deficit in Cleveland's public school system and music education among the programs getting cut, the museum aid could benefit the city as a whole, Williams said.Alaska Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens claimed credit for channeling federal money to the state's salmon industry, including money to research use of salmon as a base for baby food."The goal is to increase the market for salmon by encouraging the production of more `value-added' salmon products," Murkowski's office said.Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, let it be known they had won $4 million for an environmentally friendly public transportation system in Traverse City.Many of the special items that made the cut were promoted by lobbyists hired by interest groups, companies or communities to convince lawmakers money was needed for their projects."No, a bike trail in X, Y, Z part of the country doesn't benefit the country as a whole, but the people in that district or community (also) put their money into the pot," said Jim Albertine, a lobbyist who successfully pressed for research and development money for the superconductor industry.The targeted spending was so prolific that McCain had no problem filling a half-hour speech with examples. The shrimp program really stuck in his craw."I am hoping that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for this - are American shrimp unruly and lacking initiative?" he asked.McCain's query went unanswered, in part because spending documents don't identify who proposed each item or why.
I would also like to see a line item veto, but the problem is how does the president ensure fairness in such a veto? I know there would be people claiming he would favor some items over others. He probably would as would any person, but what person wouldn't. What type of favoritism would be allowed? Would it be personal or type of spending? I would think the type of spending would be more favorable then the personal due to party politics.
I think if he'd just drop the v-bomb once, just once, and tell Congress that he's not signing it with this much pork in it then they'll bo back and take some out. As it is they know he will sign whatever they send him.
FreeDuck
That must be because he just learned how to spell his name and needs the practice. You think
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace