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: <563@whuts.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 08:31:48 EST Article-I.D.: whuts.563 Posted: Wed Feb 26 08:31:48 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 20:56:59 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> <1410@mhuxt.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 72 I have been correctly criticized for focussing primarily upon the Reagan administration's various attempts to get around the will of Congress in criticizing the line-item veto. But the problem applies *regardless* of whether the President is "liberal" or "conservative" - the problem is that unless the Congress has the power of the purse in the full sense they were granted it by the Constitution, that Presidents of whatever persuasion will have undue powers greater than any they have ever had before. Congress, on the other hand, will be emasculated and weak. Funding is absolutely *critical* to any laws. Without the funds to enforce a law, it becomes a dead issue. For example: in 1967 the Congress passed a law in line with Lady Bird Johnsons pet project calling for the banning of all billboards on federal highways. Have you noticed the disappearance of billboards in the last 20 years? Of course not - because virtually no funding was granted to enforce this law, nothing was ever done. (much like some pollution laws) In the battle over funding the President has major advantages. The Presidency is (nominally) in the control of one person. Therefore it (the executive branch) can easily speak with one voice, The Congress on the other hand involves 535 people each representing districts with widely varying interests. It is this broad base of competing interests that makes the Congress in some rough sense representative of the competing interests in the nation. Given these competing interests it is extremely difficult to get two thirds of the Congress to agree, particularly on controversial issues. It is also easier because of these split interests for Presidents to pit one group against another. Can you imagine the Congress passing funding to enforce the Civil Rights Act in 1965 with a two-thirds majority if there had been an anti-Civil Rights President in office? Or more to the point, do you suppose the Congress could have passed the Air and Water Pollution Acts it did pass in the 70's despite Nixon's opposition? Nixon "impounded" funds destined for sewage treatment programs - do you suppose he would have hesitated for an instant in line-item vetoing such funds completely? These are some things liberals generally support which would probably not have been passed with a line-item veto. On the other hand, there are some things which conservatives support which would face the same fate against a hostile President. It would be very difficult for practically all major weapons systems to attain a two thirds majority in the face of a Presidential line-item veto. The MX missile would of course never garner such support (altho even many conservatives concede the MX is a turkey) but then neither would cruise missiles, the B1 bomber, increased spending on conventional forces and many other such items. In both these cases Congress would have no power to override an opposing President if a third of the Congress supported the President. Moreover, I think it is just plain naive to dismiss the argument that the President would *not* use the line-item veto to horsetrade for funding that s/he desires by threatening to line-item veto funding s/he does not desire. There is horse-trading now. That is politics. Right now the President offers to support such and such funding Congressman Smith wants if she will support such and such funding the President wants. Armed with the line-item veto the Presidents power in this bargaining process will become dictatorial. Nor does the line-item veto have to be waved as a public warning in all the press for it to be effective. Seldom does the press report the horse-trading and jockeying that occurs now between various Congressmen trading favors and votes and the President doing the same. Such pressure would be exerted quietly but quite effectively. Only in extreme cases (if ever) would the President raise the threat of line-item vetoing Congressionally favored legislation unless s/he gets the funding s/he wants. The line-item veto would be a disaster for the balance of powers outlined in our Constitution. It offers the prospect of a virtual elected dictator which I find very scarey. tim sevener whuxn!orb