Sen. Byrd rips line-item veto proposal (AP/CNN)

[eppur_se_muova]

Proponents say measure necessary to rein in spending

Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Posted: 1:56 p.m. EDT (17:56 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A proposal to restore a scaled-back version of the line-item veto authority for presidents drew withering scorn Tuesday from the dean of the Senate, who called it "an offensive slap at Congress."

But the White House defended the idea as a way for President Bush to weed wasteful spending from appropriations bills that he has little choice but to sign.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia led the Democratic assault on Bush's so-called legislative line-item veto, saying it would shift too much of Congress' cherished constitutional power of the purse to the executive branch while giving president a new club with which to threaten lawmakers.
***
An earlier, stronger version of the line-item veto passed in 1996 under the new Republican majority in Congress, but the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional two years later because it allowed the president to single-handedly change laws passed by Congress
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/02/congressspending.ap/index.html

Just what the ** WH needs ... more tools.

[wakeme2008]

1. Robert C. Byrd took Clinton to the SC and won in 96

Bush will lose there too. Why waste time.

[Canuckistanian]

28. And Clinton used the same argument

Clinton wanted to cut pork products from bills he had to sign.

Somehow, I don't think Shrubbolini wants it for that same reason.

[yngliberal]

2. Confused

Which proposal is Kerry a co-sponsor of or am I missing something?

[thoughtanarchist]

3. Kerry backs the line item veto...

I think either:

1) he sincerely does not believe that * will be able to do much damage before that powerful pen is passed onto a Dem in '08

or (more likely)

2) he wants to call the gop bluff and call attention to their fiscal irresponsibility knowing that the SCOTUS will never allow the proposal to succeed. (Clinton had it and it was nixed by the supreme court)

Hard to tell with Kerry as he's always triangulating...

[karynnj]

7. Neither

Kerry's proposal has the Congress getting the last word - which will likely make it constitutional. He strongly believes that this is a needed countermeasure to the Congressmen trading votes to get everyone's pork approved. It is not consistent to say that he feels this is a good idea when Clinton or himself are President, but bad when Bush is President. It has worked well in some states.

The LIV addresses only lines in the budget. In a case like now, the only Democratic expendatures that get in are those that have sufficient merit that the Senators and Congressmen feel they can't afford to vote against them. If Bush eliminates only these Democratic measures, for the same reason, Congress will reject the cuts. (This example both demonstrates why this is more likely to be constitutional and why abuse (of this type) would be difficult. If we take over a house, it is more obvious that partisan cuts will fail.

As to Byrd, he is great on the Constitution but he is VERY much a person who has used his power and position to proudly provide West Virginia with pork. In Kerry's case, this is him being a good government Democrat.

It is Bill Clinton, not Kerry who triangulates. Kerry is simply not an ideolog.

[depakid]

8. Byrd is one of the all time kings of pork

and he should have retired years ago.

Like Strom Thurmond, he's a walking talking case for some sort of term limits amendment.

[thoughtanarchist]

9. Just to play Devil's advocate...

If it's such good government, why are there no co-sponsors?

Not even the (other) senators preening for an '08 run seem to want to touch this...

Where is the scab on this pepperoni pizza of a bill that I'm not seeing?

...and I have to say that I'm more then pleased and proud of my Jr Senator, (he's my favorite) but it's hard to deny that he uses strategy. He deliberates. He triangulates. It's not a jab. It's a testament to his intelligence and thoughtfulness. I just can't help but be skittish about whether he's got all the t's crossed on this one.

You'll have to pardon me for being suspicious of a bill that seeks to grant more power to an executive that has been making power grabs since day one but I have to wonder if there is something down that hole that would make it a bad idea to stick your hand in.

[TheVirginian]

14. Further clarification:

Senators Allen and Talent introduced last session a constitutional amendment to give the President line-item veto power on appropriations.

Likely, the reason that Kerry's resolution doesn't have any co-sponsors is because its not likely to come to the floor of the Senate anytime soon, and Kerry probably hasn't asked anyone to co-sponsor it yet because there are other matters before the chamber.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Kerry is the original sponsor of S.2372

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02372:

So far he has not been able to convince any of his colleagues to cosponsor the bill.

[hang a left]

4. What can the line item veto do that signing statements cant?? nt

[thoughtanarchist]

6. It can strike earmarked funds from appropriations bills.

Discretionary spending stuff like new library projects, bridges to nowhere, etc.

The bill in question sends a budget with the stricken items back to congress to accept or reject.

[Yupster]

12. I like Kerry's proposal

If I understand it correctly, basically the president can pick an individual expenditure out of a huge bill and demand congress vote on it by itself without cover of flood relief or military pay etc.

[TheVirginian]

13. Clarification:

This procedure is called a "recision", as its not an actual veto like Clinton had in the 90's. The President has called for this procedure, the recision, to be authorized. Kerry's bill is a line-item veto on appropriations.

[Rose Siding]

10. If only he didn't have that cursed little document in his pocket

Damn you, Byrd *shaking fist*

[lovuian]

11. Why do we need Congress anyway!!!

:sarcasm: Isn't the President the boss around here...

[necso]

15. With the Lion of the Senate,

on this, I concur.

(Let me express my belated condolences to the Senator on his tragic loss. But when facing such a great sorrow, a man can do no more than shoulder his burdens, continue on in service to his principles and his God, and rededicate himself to his duty.)

And regardless of any possible merits that a line-item veto might have in theory, given the historical context (the unConstitutional expansion of presidential power; attacks upon, and the deliberate erosion of, Constitutional protections embodied in the division of power between branches of government, along with checks and balances on presidential power; the abuse of presidential power for political, ideological and personal ends; etc) it is only those who are completely delusional and out-of-touch -- or who are little more than neocon flunkies or fellow-travelers -- who could possibly support giving more power (power which will be abused) to this president.

One hopes that few Democrats will fall into this trap, ie, various cunning, sage political strategies notwithstanding.

[TheVirginian]

17. Exactly how much more power is it, though?

The veto affects appropriations in the budget only, and only gives the President the power to cut, not to add. And every veto is sent back to the Congress for the potential to overturn the veto, so on the off-chance that 67 Senators think a bridge to nowhere in Alaska is a good idea, they can overturn the veto.

While I understand, in theory, this gives the President more control, one must look at it seperate from other spheres that exist in the relationship between the executive and the legislative. When it comes to budget spending, and a bill is passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and send to the President as a bundle with hundreds upon hundreds of attatchments that represent earmarks, the President has absolutely no power in the face of Congress; the President can only reject, unilaterally, the budget or approve it. And Congress usually passes the budget right before the end of the session, forcing the President to sign it or risk a shutdown.

When it comes to appropriations and budget, the President has very little power and very little check over Congress. Congress has taken the wiggle room given to it by the Constitution and exploited it to the point where its almost impossible for the executive branch to stop any sort of budget bill from Congress. The line-item veto would level the playing field a little bit, and still give Congress the final word.

[necso]

18. How much power?

A single drop is too much.

And let's say that some budget item has enough votes to pass, but not enough to override a veto, then whether or not this item goes forward would effectively be up to the president.

This is real power, if of narrow scope. -- Power that will be ruthlessly exploited.

Therefore, a single drop is too much

Congress should grow up and start acting like adults, not like a bunch of spoiled children who seem to want "daddy" to bail them out when they over-spend.

Because "daddy" is manipulative, vengeful, mean-spirited, pig-headed -- and just plain nuts.

And it is extremely unseemly for Congress-persons who are Presidential hopefuls to be supporting such legislation. Extremely unseemly.

[TheVirginian]

19. Quick question

Would it be too much with any other President than the current one?

I agree that Congresss should start acting like adults, but the prevalent attitude in Congress is a bi-partisan agreement that they'll exploit all the loopholes in the Senate concerning the budget so votes don't have to be cast on specific earmarks and so not a lot of scrutiny is given to the billions of dollars of pork that both parties jam into the budget. And while some on each side of the aisle have tried to buck that habit, its going to take at least over 50 Senators to do anything about it, and that's not going to happen.

Meanwhile, because the debate focuses around parlimentary procedure and the complex rules of the Senate, the public at large simply has no comprehension about the neccesary reform of the budgetary process. They can't pressure their lawmakers to follow the rules--1) because technically they are, and because 2) the lawmakers know more about the rules than the public does. But the public can pressure their lawmakers to pass measures that guarantee a reduction of pork barrel spending. A line-item veto would be one of those measures.

From your second sentence, it seems to disagree with the President having any veto power. Say there's a piece of legislation moving foward with enough votes to pass but not enough to over-ride the veto? The President can axe that with no problem. What's the primary difference, or the huge power shift, between allowing the President to veto smaller appropriations mark-ups as well?

Or, to phrase it another way, what is the great benefit of allowing Senators to continue business as usual and wait until the last second to jam thousands of earmarks into the budget, then send it to the White House as a bundle with no public scrutiny whatsoever?

[necso]

20. "Would it be too much with any other President than the current one?"

Yes, fiscal discipline is a recent memory, and it can be attained again without granting any President more power. But this is especially the case when dealing with a president who has repeatedly shown himself ready, indeed, eager, to push past the Constitutional limits on his power. Giving such a president more power calls into serious question what the hell supporters of this are thinking.

Moreover, the Presidential veto is a powerful weapon, and Congress has evolved a mechanism (lumping things together) to protect their power from it -- and also to enable compromise bills to pass. This confronts the President with the choice of vetoing a bill entirely because he doesn't like part of it, or signing it whole. Furthermore, Congress takes a risk putting things into a bill that might cause it to be vetoed. And if we had a President who vetoed abusive bills, then maybe lawmakers would take this threat seriously, and therefore modify their behavior.

Is Congress abusing this mechanism -- oh boy, are they. But giving more power to the President as a way of dealing with this isn't the way to resolve it, especially not with this president.

And there's the question of the slippery slope. If any below-bill-level Presidential veto is approved here, what comes next?

"I agree that Congress should start acting like adults, but the prevalent attitude in Congress is a bi-partisan agreement that they'll exploit all the loopholes in the Senate concerning the budget so votes don't have to be cast on specific earmarks and so not a lot of scrutiny is given to the billions of dollars of pork that both parties jam into the budget. And while some on each side of the aisle have tried to buck that habit, its going to take at least over 50 Senators to do anything about it, and that's not going to happen."

We've had fiscal discipline before, we can have it again. Indeed, maybe we can start on the road to it as soon as the next Congress. So why do this now? Timely public posturing?

"Meanwhile, because the debate focuses around parliamentary procedure and the complex rules of the Senate, the public at large simply has no comprehension about the necessary reform of the budgetary process. They can't pressure their lawmakers to follow the rules--1) because technically they are, and because 2) the lawmakers know more about the rules than the public does. But the public can pressure their lawmakers to pass measures that guarantee a reduction of pork barrel spending. A line-item veto would be one of those measures."

See above.

A budget-line-item veto could be used as a means to reduce spending by eliminating unnecessary pork-barrel spending. It could also be used to eliminate other spending, and in either case could be used as a weapon by the President.

"From your second sentence, it seems to disagree with the President having any veto power. Say there's a piece of legislation moving forward with enough votes to pass but not enough to over-ride the veto? The President can axe that with no problem. What's the primary difference, or the huge power shift, between allowing the President to veto smaller appropriations mark-ups as well?"

Huh? Consider context.... and the word "item"

It's a line-item veto that I'm opposed to. And one difference is that Congress works on the basis of putting together bills that can include more than one thing, and that do include multiple things that are the results of compromises. Letting the President effectively undo these deals by selectively vetoing individual items not only changes this system, but it undermines effecting any difficult tit-for-tat compromises in these (affected) bills. Plus, if a President is struggling for votes on another issue, he will have a powerful weapon in the ability to veto a (some, any, all) budget item that a Congress-person whose vote the President wants to influence (on this other issue) is particularly interested in.

Moreover, this is a fundamental change in the level on which, and the granularity with which, the President may operate (he would individually "own" any veto-able budget item that couldn't withstand a veto), and it reflects a shift in power from Congress to the President -- at an especially bad time -- and to deal with a problem that could substantially diminish fairly soon. Besides, the President already has the power to veto the whole damn bill, and if there are items in it such that enough Senators won't vote to save them as part of the whole bill, then the President can in one fell swoop get rid of the whole lot. And yeah, I know that here are timing issues that Congress takes advantage off. Other Presidents have dealt with it -- let this one -- and let any future President do so also.

"Or, to phrase it another way, what is the great benefit of allowing Senators to continue business as usual and wait until the last second to jam thousands of earmarks into the budget, then send it to the White House as a bundle with no public scrutiny whatsoever?"

Well, there's always preserving the Constitution. And it's not as though this is the only possible way to deal with the problem. Indeed, a good start would be to change Congressional leadership.

To wrapup this response, I believe this bill is in no small part a cynical gesture on the part of certain legislators who believe that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. However, if a strike-down doesn't happen, then the door will have certainly opened to further expansion of Presidential veto power, if not by the then-sitting court, then by another one.

You don't like the Constitution, amend it.

Oh, and I corrected some of your spelling, which was a necessary liberty in order to easily correct my own.

[TheVirginian]

24. "You don't like the Constitution, amend it."

We don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, so rather than just quote everything you've said and re-state my opinion on it and engage in an endless round robin, I accept your disagreement.

I would like to say something, however, concerning the one line about amending the Constitution. Senator Kerry's proposal is not a Constitutional Amendment, and people I've talked to on the Hill are somewhat puzzled on what Kerry thinks is so special about his bill that it won't get overturned by the Supreme Court. There are other proposals out there that do amend the Constitution. I know Senators Allen and Talent introduced one last year, and I think Senator Mikulksi has had one on the books for a while as well. I wouldn't be opposed to a Constitutional amendment to give the President this power.

[thoughtanarchist]

27. Perhaps that is the point...

"...what Kerry thinks is so special about his bill that it won't get overturned by the Supreme Court."

If Kerry's bill leaves itself open to Supreme Court interpretation, the opposition has legal recourse should they consider an exec to be abusing it.

Perhaps the safeguards I was fishing for in another reply are implicit in that his bill would rely on checks and balances in order to remain in effect... It's like a built in self-destruct mechanism. A poison pill.

[TheVirginian]

29. Except that the SC wasn't intended to be used that way

And I don't think it would work for long. The first time the President tried to axe something, say subsidies for an orchid in Oregon, the first thing Senators Smith and Wyden would do is take it to court. A Congressman can't go back to his constituents and say "I did all I could" when a bill that the Supreme Court would find unconstitutional is what caused earmarks to be pulled from the state.

I understand what you're saying, and its an interesting concept, but the Supreme Court simply doesn't work that way. Even if no Congressman sues, all it takes is any organization that can show due harm (using the same analogy, an orchid in Oregon) to sue for the matter to be taken to court. It wouldn't last.

And there's something to be said about passing a law that we know to be unconstitutional but trying to use it anyways.

[thoughtanarchist]

21. You are making excellent points...

Since you seem to have a full understanding on these measures...

Answer me this:

Should such a bill pass, is there any safeguard to address the potential for a situation in which the president could mount his own version of a filibuster, effectively keeping such a process going on indefinitely and starving any / all projects of funding? Can you imagine a situation in which a president could use this power as a form of "procedural punishment"?

..or would that even be a bad thing regardless if kept in the realm of discretionary spending?

I'm trying to think of a case / cause / project where withholding discretionary spending can cause serious pain to segments of the population.

I'm also trying to think of cases where starving specific projects can be used to threaten the careers of individual congress-critters.

The most obvious thing that comes to mind is Katrina relief. but while I cannot say that the $$ was spent wisely, I can assert that the $$ was needed in a hurry.

[TheVirginian]

23. Thank you.

As far as a Presidential filibuster goes, I don't see that occuring, as Congress would still control its own legislative agenda. If the President decided to send matters back to Congress just to hold things up, Congress could just as easily move onto whatever business it liked. Votes on overriding vetoes tend to be quick anyways.

As far as Presidential retribution goes, the President could, in theory, punish regions of the country and their representatives by doing things such as (throwing out a random example) specifically veteoing $3 billion for levee repairs in Louisiana (though, at this point, that would be the subject of an emergency supplemental as it is now, and not a traditional earmark. However, the example works for just about any regional need, be it hurricane preparation in the Gulf, earthquake preperation on the West Coast, etc.). The problem with the President doing so is two-fold: One, it is incredibly bad for public perception, and two, it would almost certainly get overturned, probably on the same day it was vetoed, and Congress would look good doing it. The President, or any other President, would never charge head-first into such a losing PR battle with Congress.

More subtle appropriations might not recieve as much scrutiny (mid-size city infrastructure earmarks don't make national headlines like New Orleans levees do), and if the President wanted to punish Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH 9), he could specifically veto an earmark to provide Toledo, Ohio with $40 million to upgrade its mass transit system and clean up its coastline (a hypothetical, but typical, earmark). You likely wouldn't see that on the front page of the Washington Post or hear about it on CNN's evening broadcast, but it certainly would make the front page of Ohio newspapers, and there would be tremendous pressure on the part of the Ohio delegation and the state leadership to overturn the veto and attack the President. Certainly no Republican could get elected in Ohio if they didn't denounce the veto.

This scenario, of course, is provided that the President used the veto for a political purpose. State and local media would go nuts, and it would seriously jeopardize the state party, most likely causing enough turmoil that it would get national attention sooner or later. Most of the public wouldn't care about it like they would about funding for New Orleans, but politicos across the country would, and activists across the country would make it a primary action. The blogosphere would erupt, and there would be intense pressure put on the media to cover the story, which would cause a lot more headaches than it is worth for the administration to make selective, political-based cuts. After this turmoil reached its peak, the veto would also likely be overturned by Congress, with a gentleman's agreement put in place that, if the President makes vetos on specific regions for political purposes, the Congress will band together and override it, as there's no guarantee that the next President will be a Republican.

Pretty much, the answer to your question is to ask how much faith you have in the power of the press to appropriately inform the public of these vetoes, and how much faith you have in the public to be appopriately riled if the President makes vetoing appropriations a partisan matter.

[thoughtanarchist]

25. "...how much faith..."? How long have you been on DU?

In my time here I've seen enough posts to fill a pickup that essentially say "That's IT... That is the issue that will provoke so much outrage as to bring down this administration".

I do not have a hell of alot of faith in the media to apply pressure or in the people to glance up from "desperate Housewives" long enough to take notice of blatant assaults on our democracy. Hell, it seems like at least 1/3 of the population doesn't care about being spied on, never mind something as nuanced as using a line item veto as a political weapon.

I DO want to see a return to pay as you go and a return to balanced budgets. I don't want to see congress weakening itself to the exec branch.

...maybe I should bite the bullet and read the bill. :dunce: :hurts: :boring:

[TheVirginian]

26. Perhaps...

But matters such as NSA wiretapping and the Iraq war tend to be distant from people's immeadiate thoughts (unless, of course, they or a family member is in Iraq). Sure, most of the country probably doesn't support the wiretapping, but because it doesn't affect them personally, they don't get worked up about it. Hitting a pothole everyday on your morning commute and having to take your kids to a dirty beach and to sub-standard schools, however, does get noticed, especially when its time to vote.

[w4rma]

16. I support Sen. Byrd's view. (nt)

[Gregorian]

22. Bush is already effectively using his own version of line item veto.

His signing statements apparently are doing just that. These people really warrant bringing back the firing squad.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1088504