Posted on 02/20/2006 8:03:09 AM PST by RWR8189
WASHINGTON — 's request for broad, and constitutionally questionable, authority to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills is drawing limited interest in Congress.
Even though he has yet to issue a single veto in his five years in office, Bush asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him power. He said it and a movement to curb lawmakers' appetite for special projects, or earmarks, would provide a one-two punch in reducing government spending.
"We can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto," he said.
White House budget director Joshua Bolten said the two approaches "go very much hand-in-hand" in weeding out thousands of narrowly targeted projects that lawmakers secure by sticking them in larger, must-pass spending bills.
Bush is the latest in a long line of presidents, both Republican and Democrat, to seek the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.
President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law. Clinton used that power 82 times in 1997, and even with Congress overriding his veto 38 times, it saved the government almost $2 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
WTF does he need it for he doesn't veto anyways? I know, he'll veto out anything in any bill dealing with getting tougher on illegals or businesses that hire them.
You're such a tool.
No need for a line item veto, because he never veto's entire bills?
Think please...
Clinton really screwed us on this one.
Imagine what it would be like now if Ronald Reagan would have had the Line Item Veto.
TT
Well you tell me, which spending increase has he Vetoe'd?
I'll nap while you find that one.
The SCOTUS ruled after congress gave clinton a line item veto (that he used exclusively to veto tax breaks -- never once to veto a spending item) that the Constitution did not allow for a line item veto. Therefore, it would take more than Congress to approve a line item veto; it would take two-thirds of both houses of congress and then ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Clinton to his credit signed the Line-Item Veto into law.
It was struck down by the SCOTUS shortly after.
I think the point was that to extrapolate that because Bush has not vetoed an entire bill (the only way he can veto) he would not use a line item veto to strike objectionable spending out of a bill is an assumption that is not warranted.
A President would have to be an idiot to veto a budget that includes finding for troops in the field under his command.
Can you imagine a democrat congress giving Reagan line item veto power? Not in a million years. And the only way this would ever get anywhere is if the GOP had over a two-thirds majority in both houses. Even then, it wouldn't pass because there are enough RINOs that would never agree to allow something that might upset their earmarking pork gravy train. There is not enough of a popular push for the line item veto now like there was in 1994-95.
This is a rather good idea. Another one I thought of: Pass a law allowing the President to "line item" veto any "earmarked" piece of spending--something not specifically voted on by the Congress. Now, this might result in the President nitpicking against his political enemies, but it also could allow him to weed out all sorts of garbage, the kind like Pork King Robert Byrd (Klansman) infuses into every bill.
SSSoooooo, we're going to ask congress, the body which inserts the pork barrel spending in the first place, to allow the president to veto discreectionery pork barrel spending from any bill? What a concept-good luck!!!!
Why not do the radical thing, and just veto the entire appropriation for the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Commerce, and Labor, along with funding for the EPA and the rest of the New Deal Alphabet Soup?
Do these Departments and Agencies actually do anything that is even remotely Constitutional?
Based on how this tool was used by former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, we do NOT want the president to have this power. Tommy used it to strike out individual words and even letters. In at least one case, it turned a LOAN to the state into a GRANT. (IIRC, it was from the Counties and Municipalities' Self-Insurance fund) Once it was publicized, it was overturned by the Legislature.
Because Congress would override an outride veto of such an appropriation very easily.
Just like when Reagan vetoed the Highway Bill.
Bingo. More to the point, he'll use the line-item veto to try to overcome one of the most severe cases of lame duck in the history of his office. The Congress that convenes in 2007 will be hard-pressed even to remember the name of who sits in the Oval Office. Count on it.
Line item veto presents real constitutional separation of powers issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.