BCT Editorial – 3/9/06

This page was last updated on March 10, 2006.

Power play; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 9, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush wants Congress to give him the power to veto specific items in the spending bills that reach his desk as a way of controlling government spending.

“This comes from one of the most profligate and political presidents in the nation’s history.”

[RWC] Spending has increased slower under President Bush than under President Clinton, so I guess this means Bill Clinton is also in the Times group.

You’ll note the author provides no data to support his allegations.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe all levels of government spend far too much, especially the feds. My only point here is to address the exaggerations of the editorial.

“It’s time to stop this nonsense. This Republican-controlled Congress already has abdicated far too many of its prerogatives and been far too deferential to this White House without handing over the power of the purse as well.”

[RWC] Once again, you’ll note the author provides no data to support his allegations.

“The matter is probably moot anyway. The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a 1996 law giving the president so-called line-item veto power violated the principal [sic] that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.”

[RWC] While it’s bashing a “Republican-controlled Congress,” the editorial fails to note the line-item veto was part of the 1994 Republican Contract with America and that a Republican-majority Congress pushed through the bill even though the sitting president (Bill Clinton) was a Democrat. I tend to have a relatively low opinion of career politicians, but I thought passing the Line Item Veto Act even with an opposition president in office displayed a rare commitment to principle.

While the Supreme Court ruled against the Line Item Veto Act, the second sentence in the above paragraph is false. The decision said nothing like the “line-item veto power violated the principal [sic] that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.”

Here is what the Supreme Court decision said: “Our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text of what may ‘become a law,’ such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.”

“Although the White House thinks it has come up with a way to get around the ruling, this proposal wouldn’t have been needed if members of Congress put the good of the nation ahead of their political careers and the special interests they serve so obediently.”

[RWC] The approach allegedly proposed by the White House is not new. As soon as the Supreme Court struck down the previous line-item veto law, House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) made a similar proposal. In effect, a president would veto line items before he signs and bill and it would be sent back to Congress for approval or override. This process would not violate the procedure outlined in the Constitution because Congress would have to approve the changes before the President could sign it.

Finally, I agree the line-item veto should be unnecessary. Regardless of party, our elected representatives throw money around like it’s free.