Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto at Presidential Level
Message-ID: <560@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 09:52:06 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.560
Posted: Mon Feb 24 09:52:06 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 05:16:57 EST
References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 31

> From Jeff Sonntag: 
>      Dictators tend to be people who can force a country's government to do
> things extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the population.  Exactly
> how would a line-item veto enable the pres to do this?
> 
 
Let us look at another example, even more mean-spirited, of how
only through Congressional *funding* pressure *PLUS* judicial rulings
was a malicious Reagan Administration policy changed.
The Reagan Administration decided that thousands of people receiving
disability payments were simply lazy malingerers who did not deserve
any help from the government unlike defense contractors and corporations.
Certainly it would not be objectionable to examine such cases and
see if such were indeed the case.  This is *NOT* what the Reagan
Administration did.  What the Reagan Administration did was to
summarily cut the benefits of thousands of disabled Americans without
following due process.  The Congress objected to this procedure and
declared it was not the intent of legislation to cut such benefits
without due process. (this is because Congressmen no doubt were getting
requests from local constituents for help with such problems)
The Reagan Administration still refused to reinstate the disability
payments.  It was taken to the Courts and finally after being taken
to higher courts, the Reagan administration agreed to reinstate
thousands of people cut from disability rolls without due process.
It was only through the combined pressure of Congress and the Courts
that the Administration changed its arbitrary imposition of policy.
 
Without funding pressure the Congress would have no effective tool
to oppose such unilateral and arbitrary policies.
 
          tim sevener  whuxn!orb