Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto at Presidential Level
Message-ID: <2010@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 13:45:41 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2010
Posted: Sat Mar  1 13:45:41 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Mar-86 05:54:25 EST
References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP>, <1410@mhuxt.UUCP> <5044@alice.uUCp>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 50

> Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.  You don't understand.  Tim S knows for SURE that
> Reagan is bad, so he doesn't NEED any evidence. :-(
> 
> Seriously, Tim, you ought to look a bit harder at the Social Security
> screw-up, and see just WHO, and WHERE the abuses were.  Oddly
> enough, you may find antagonized Reagan opponents hoping to embarrass
> Reagan.  Wouldn't that be a change, now, and wouldn't it show the
> ethics of those responsible.
> 
> (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj

Sorry, what is wrong about Social Security?  It is solvent due to dedicated
taxes, and in the light of growing expected time that people will spend
in their retirement the increase of those taxes is perfectly within
reasonable expectations.  Reagan himself was flip-flopping on this issue
and is difficult to assign him any role in this problem, negative or
positive.

The major problem is not whether a president tends to be more ethical
or less ethical than legislators.  They seem to belong to the same 
species.  The problem is the conflicting dangers of concentration of
power and of government by stalemate.  The problem is that one-line
veto may contribute to both.  

Imagine that a president indeed will use one-line veto to promote his
pet project and eradicate the ones he ideologically dislikes (like
Legal Services currently).  Imagine also that the budget is not balanced
as yet.  Then the majority (less than 2/3) of congress will be forced
to pin down the president by denying him borrowing authority.  It is
done now, but the increased power of the executive may force the
legislators to resort even more to their negative powers.

As I see it, the budgetary process is little bit on the ridiculous
side.  Many budgets, thousands pages each, are written and not read,
since their are based on assumptions unacceptable to the other sides
of the process.  I would propose to streamline the initial haggling
by making it official that there are two rounds of budget negotiations.
First would decide the draft, and the draft should by law have no
more than say, 50k characters.  All the budgets proposed in the
second round would have to be consistent with the draft.

On the other hand, dreaming that one person may be more couragious
and ethical, so he will make correctly or the tough choices is
pleasant, but not realistic.  Remember that the difference between
fat, muscle and bone is in the eye of beholder (Weinberger will
insist to you that his department is lean and mean, others will
disagree, some people see wellfare cheaters spending food-stamps
on vodka, others see malnurished children etc. etc.).  

Piotr Berman