Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto at Presidential Level
Message-ID: <1410@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Feb-86 13:00:24 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1410
Posted: Tue Feb 25 13:00:24 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 05:27:58 EST
References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 43

> > 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.

     Exactly how would a line-item veto have enabled Uncle Ron to
ignore the court's ruling?  And how did congress's pressure help here -
bringing the problem to the judicial branch's attention?  That's what
they're there for.
>  
> Without funding pressure the Congress would have no effective tool
> to oppose such unilateral and arbitrary policies.

      How did they use 'funding pressure' in this instance to cause Ron
to back down?  I didn't see any mention of that in your article.  And
just what is 'funding pressure', and how would a line-item veto relieve
congress of this tool.  (And what evidence do you have to show that
congress has been using this tool in a benificial way?)
>           tim sevener  whuxn!orb
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j