But is the Line Item Veto the Right Thing?
“The line-item veto is unconstitutional determined not by John McCain, but by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court found that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. If I hadn’t challenged that, I would not have been carrying out my fiduciary duties for the people of New York City. That was money that was illegally deprived to the people of my city. I fought for them.”
So said former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani in Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate. Giuliani was responding to a shot fired by Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain was speaking of how readily he would wield a veto pen as President to thwart pork barrel spending, also known by the harmless-sounding euphemism, earmarks.
Said McCain: “…we’ll give the president of the United States a line-item veto, which Rudy Giuliani opposed so that he can protect his $250 million worth of pork.”
McCain was referring to a lawsuit in which Giuliani, as mayor, successfully prevented former President Bill Clinton from exercising an asserted line item veto over federal spending earmarked for projects in New York City. The US Supreme Court ruled Clinton’s assertion unconstitutional, clearing the way for the pork to be sent to New York.
The line item veto, enjoyed by more than thirty US governors, gives chief executives the ability to sign spending bills into law while scratching out specific appropriations they deem exorbitant or unnecessary. Chester Alan Arthur was the first President to support the enactment of such a veto power. Ronald Reagan asked for legislation legitimizing the line item veto.
Giuliani is right in stating that the Supreme Court has ruled the line item veto unconstitutional. No one can dispute that, although McCain did on Wednesday evening. But in stating repeatedly, as he did in both the November 28 and the earlier October 9, debates, that “the line item veto is unconstitutional,” he also sort of avoids the issue. In the two debates, first Governor Romney and then Senator McCain, were challenging Giuliani’s bona fides as a proponent of fiscal responsibility.
Giuliani’s contention that in bringing the suit, he was simply protecting the interests of his city, may have some merit, although it sounds an awful lot like the argument of every sectional and special interest group when it comes to pork barrel spending. Their arguments roughly run like this: “I’m against earmarks, unless they’re earmarks that go to my community or to my preferred class of people.”
But Giuliani appears to want to drape his lawsuit in the wifty legitimacy of constitutionality. It’s a bit of a dodge.
The implicit question in McCain’s and Romney’s shots at him which Giuliani might more profitably address is, “Leaving aside the merits of the $250-million of New York pork, do you believe in a line item veto? Would you support a line item veto, something which even the Republican you and the other candidates for president invoke as the patron saint of your party, Ronald Reagan, supported? Or, was Mr. Reagan wrong?”
I would be interested in how Mr. Giuliani–and all the other candidates for his party’s nomination–would respond to that question. (I’d also like to know how the Democratic candidates stand on the line item veto.)
It was Andrew Jackson who first made energetic use of presidential veto power. He did so to stand up against the interests he thought controlled the Congress. He deemed it a legitimate weapon for the President, who was elected by the whole country, to use in preventing interest groups of various kinds from getting laws passed benefiting the few.
But the presidential veto is usually impotent when it comes to spending measures. Illegitmate pork can easily be folded into legitimate and necessary spending measures, forcing President’s hands. The President can choose to veto appropriations bills, which often go to the White House late any way, because they contain objectionable pork spending or simply accept such bills as the best that’s likely to be produced by a Congress prone, even when its members are personally incorruptible, to spend money in the ways that constituents, city councils, and important supporters want them to spend it.
While Presidents are human beings and therefore as subject to corruption as the next mortal, it’s easier for the President to speak for the whole country, as Andrew Jackson knew, than to push the petty, budget-busting agendas of congressional districts and individual states. The Constitution is a commendable, remarkable document. I have the deepest respect for it as the best thinking of what should be regarded, I think, as America’s greatest generation. (The Constitution is, I think, greater than the Declaration of Independence. That document enunciated principles of liberty. But the Constitution was how the generation who secured American liberty decided it would use its liberty effectively and well.) The Constitution was not without its flaws, as its countenancing of slavery attests. The Framers knew too, that the document wasn’t perfect and that circumstances would change, meaning that the power to amend it was essential and built into it.
The failure to give the US President the ability to veto specific items of spending within massive appropriations bills appears to me to be a design flaw in the Constitution.
For McCain to say that the line item veto is constitutional, which he did say on Wednesday night, is flat-out wrong. For Giuliani to say–repeatedly–that it’s unconstitutional is irrelevant. The question, as I say, is whether advocating an amendment or at least, advocating exploring the possibility of such an amendment, is advisable.
[This is cross-posted at my personal blog.]
14 Responses to “But is the Line Item Veto the Right Thing?”
So what you’re doing is saying McCain was totally wrong, but here’s why the constitution should be changed to allow the line-item veto. That’s nonsense, really. The line-item veto is not in dealing with something unforseen. If the President had the ability to do a line-item veto, there would be no point in having a Congress or multiple parties, because the President would never, ever have to compromise or deal with a bill in its entirety as decided upon by the Congress. It’s not outdated, and Guliani, despite his flaws, in the context of this discussion saying it is unconsitutional, is not irrelevant. If something is unconstitutional, it doesn’t mean simply that it is not specifically identified in the constitution. It means that it does not belong in, or rather, undermines, the structure of government as defined by the constitution. It’s not a design flaw in the constitution, and it’s not a traditional amendment. It’s the sort of change to be made at a Constitutional Convention, where you actually throw out the old constitution and draft a new one, because the line-item veto directly undermines the model of government as set up in our current Constitution.
While the president is elected by the whole country, as pointed out, he is also a member of one party
and is quite aware of how pork can affect elections and the fortunes of his fellow party members in states. LIne item veto power would tempt the president to be more partisan.
There is no perfect way to deal with pork, but there are better ways than line item veto. Transparency us one godd tool, and although that has improved somewhat, it should improved a whole lot more.
One man’s job/project is another man’s pork.
I think I see it a little differently, Mark. I think that the Supreme Court was wrong in its decision—the line item veto is implicit in the Constitution itself or, more correctly, bills being narrowly constructed was the intended practice. Had that continued the practice there’d be no need for a line item veto.
The second question, whether elected officials should be looking out for their constituents first or whether they have a higher responsibility, is an interesting one, too, one I think is intimately related to the corruption of government through the election of too many lawyers to office. I would submit that many of those pitching the “zealous advocacy” line are attorneys.
IF you bother to read this post please forget about 911, Afghanistan and Iraq while you read what I have to say. As soon as you read the last word then you can once again remember those events.
This is not a surprise. McCain, Romney and friends are traditional conservatives.
They believe in God, Country, Fiscal responsibility and tradtional moral values that will leave the liberals aghast.
Rudi is a neoconservative. Much more so then is GWB. In fact Rudi is neoconservative. GWB is A neoconservative. There is a big difference.
It is not surprising considering that the neocon movement is established in the fact that they believe in bigger and stronger central government while demanding that the government be LESS intrusive.
Translation?
Neocons will give you things like, Perscription drug benefits, more welfare, more works programs, in essence more social programs for the needy while asking for permission to project power WITHOUT using it. AKA Ronald Reagan. GWB is not and was not and never will be a Neocon.
Rudi Guillani is. He will give you the social programs you want along with the desire to project American power without using it.
So there lies the battle in the Republican party……Traditional Conservatism vs Neoconservatism. Which will prevail? Honestly this country would be much better off if the Neocons prevailed. True Neocons. Because they are liberals in conservative clothing.
Excluding 911 they are more moderate then any faction of any party around. They seek the middle ground. Rudi is the classic example of a Neocon. Believes in gay rights, abortion, gun controls etc. While being hawkish on the war and wanting to project American Power.
This is a neocon. Their philosophy is to have a larger government with more social programs while staying out of your lives. That means ignoring Gay rights, abortion etc. because it is a personal matter and the government ought not be interfering in those things.
Conservatives……nah they believe they should run your lives morally. There you have the basic differences. This is why I am so angry at GWB and a few of his cronies turning the Neocon movement into something EVIL. Because honestly it was the way toward middle ground………..Until……
911.
Sadly, it would be nice if there were an implicit line item veto, specifically applying to amendments, as these often introduce legislation wholly disconnected with the subject and purpose of the bill itself. But bills are referred to in the Constitution in the whole, not in part:
Put the line-item veto into the Constitution by the amendment process. Nobody objecting to this has a good moral or other position, but if compromise is sought, make the line-item veto apply to changes to the bill (not necessarily literally to “amendments,” but to “changes”).
Not bad. Sadly because of the war in Iraq and the pathological anti-Bush phenomenon on the Left, the term “neoconservative” has been used lately only to refer to those who have advocated a more “muscular” foreign policy (Wilsonianism brought to you by the U.S. War Machine, Baby! [tm]).
The term has long been used to mean something much broader in scope, as you have noted it. Some amount of regulatory reform and correction of excess encroachment of the federal government into some local and state affairs is sought, but these people are indeed more than happy with a large, fat, oversized federal government that would satisfy many an old-school dinosaur Democrat.
The late William Simon had it right: typical neocons (standard definition, not anti-Bush definition) are “liberals with economic common sense.” (It is questionable, though, if large spending and frequent borrowing that has happened since 1980 is sensible.)
The paleocons (a.k.a. members of the “far right”), who have no power, hardly even presence, in Washington, hate the neocons.
Decisions about line item veto power should NEVER
be based on who is currently in power in Congress or the WH, or what evil plans some imagine they are plotting.for the future.
There are some issues that should remain in the realm of what’s good for the gander is good for goose.
This is one of those issues.
It goes beyond that. 1994-2007: WHAT revolution?
Myth, then reality
“So what you’re doing is saying McCain was totally wrong, but here’s why the constitution should be changed to allow the line-item veto. That’s nonsense, really.” (Surge Jack)
McCain is wrong in the sense of being inaccurate. The Supreme Court has ruled the line item veto unconstitutional. That isn’t to say that, should he advocate it, a constitutional amendment enacting the line item veto would be wrong.
I was basically faulting Giuliani for offering a non-sequitir defense of his action thwarting the spending package for New York projects. Had Giuliani thought that these projects weren’t examples of pork barrel spending, he should have said so. And both he and McCain would have done well to have engaged in a serious conversation about pork and whether the line item veto, if put into the Constitution, would be one potential tool in dealing with it.
“If the President had the ability to do a line-item veto, there would be no point in having a Congress or multiple parties, because the President would never, ever have to compromise or deal with a bill in its entirety as decided upon by the Congress.” (Surge Jack)
Not true. Under the current veto provision, Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote. The same thing could be done with line item vetoes. In fact, a two-thirds vote would be a great litmus test for the legitimacy of questionable line items.
“…Guliani, despite his flaws, in the context of this discussion saying it is unconsitutional, is not irrelevant.” (Surge Jack)
It is irrelevant in light of the fact that Giuliani reveals the true motive behind his suit, protecting additional spending in New York City, in the course of the same discussion. He wasn’t interested in the Constitution when he brought the suit, then.
Again, the spending may be legitimate. Giuliani may have been right in fighting for the funds coming into New York City. I don’t know about that. But the former Mayor never touches on the merits of the spending, parrots that the line item veto is unconstitutional, and then “clinches” his argument by saying that in winning, he blackened the eye of Bill Clinton. All of which proves nothing.
i“t’s not a design flaw in the constitution, and it’s not a traditional amendment.” (Surge Jack)
I wondered about my use of the term “design flaw” after I posted last night, but was too tired to log back online in order to explain myself.
As I drifted off to sleep, I thought of it in these terms. Imagine that you were planning to take a flight from New York to Los Angeles. But instead of a Boeing 747, you had the craft with which the Wright Brothers made their first flight at Kitty Hawk. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that plane from a design perspective. It engaged in powered flight. But it would be inadequate for a transcontinental flight, at least a timely one.
I love the Constitution. The Framers were pragmatic geniuses and I laud their work. But there is no way they could have anticipated the enormity of the federal budget in 2008. Or its complexity. So, instead of a “design flaw,” call the impotence of the President in dealing with pork barrel spending an unexpected loophole that lets Congress get away with fiscal murder.
(Part of the Founders’ genius, by the way, was incorporating provision for the Constitution to be amended. Another evidence of their brilliance was the system of checks and balances they established, which would be enhanced, in my judgment, with the addition of the line item veto.)
There are no guarantees that a President will have the courage to stand up to Congress on pork barrel spending. But given our changed historic circumstances, it seems a shame not to give a president the ability to give it a rip!
“It’s the sort of change to be made at a Constitutional Convention, where you actually throw out the old constitution and draft a new one, because the line-item veto directly undermines the model of government as set up in our current Constitution.” (Surge Jack)
Obviously, I completely disagree with that and so have most (if not all) the Presidents since Arthur and more than three-fifths of the states relative to their governors.
“While the president is elected by the whole country, as pointed out, he is also a member of one party and is quite aware of how pork can affect elections and the fortunes of his fellow party members in states. LIne item veto power would tempt the president to be more partisan.” (domajot)
Let’s not universalize the current President’s unwillingness to stand up against the pork spending advanced by his own party during his first six years in office. There have been more than a few instances of Presidents who have disliked the spending schemes of their own parties. Jimmy Carter, for example, tended to get along better with conservative Republicans in the Congress than with his own fellow pork-bent Democrats. Using the line item veto on fellow partisans’ poek may require courage or it may require insanity.But it isn’t unprecdented.
In any case, membership in the same political parties will not ensure that Presidents and Congresses have identical interests. Franklin Roosevelt, by increasing the authority of the presidency, actually weakened the significance of the parties to presidential politics.
The primary system, which in some instances allows independents and members of other parties, to vote for the delegates who nominate parties’ candidates for President, has further weakened the ties of Presidents to their parties. (Whether this is a good idea or not is another issue.)
The point is that Presidents are less dependent on parties and therefore just as likely to butt heads with members of their own parties as not.
“One man’s job/project is another man’s pork.” (Don Quixote)
True, which is why I can’t understand why Giuliani doesn’t speak to the merits of the spending package he defended in court.
“Decisions about line item veto power should NEVER?be based on who is currently in power in Congress or the WH, or what evil plans some imagine they are plotting.for the future.
“There are some issues that should remain in the realm of what’s good for the gander is good for goose.?This is one of those issues.” (domajot)
AMEN!
Thank you to all who took the time to consider and comment on this post! I’m truly grateful.
Mark
Giuliani shouldn’t be seeking any money from the federal government (and even if he does this, the federal government should reject him), and it’s wrong for him to demand money from his long-dysfunctional state government, too.
Particularly if his city government is financing his little Hamptons love-den trips…
I think you’re right to call the lack of line-item veto authority a “flaw” in the constitution. The framers could never have imagined the complexity of modern legislation and how ineffective an all-or-nothing veto is as a check against congressional power.
Without the line-item veto, there is simply no way to curb the growth of government or the influence of special interests. Congress has a HUGE appetite for pork and ZERO self-control. I’d like to hear Giuliani talk about that.
Legislation that favors special interests (such as custom tax breaks for specific businesses) and pork (federal money used to fund city or state projects) is, unfortunately, not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. These things are attractive to all who are in office as a way of seeking favor with those who will KEEP them in office.
The President is the only one in the position to remove the cancerous tumors from the bills that come across his desk. He won’t always put aside his partisan feelings when he strikes out an offending line from a bill, but his veto can be overturned by Congress.
The line-item veto is a tool that stands a good chance of reversing the awful trend for bigger and bigger government, and greater influence by special interests.
Mark,
” membership in the same political parties will not ensure that Presidents and Congresses have identical interests.”
I see I didn’t make myself clear.
A line item veto, means that the president can veto some pork items, while okaying others. So it itsn’t the president vs. Congress, as you seem to imply, its the president vs. members of Congress, individually. This is different than if he would veto all addenda to a bill or none.
The six years of one party rule brought a lot of bad things to the surface. Politicians at all levels have a talent for cherry picking history to learn only the lessons that would suit their agenda. My concern is for what the next, and the next, president will remember and use for his own interests.
The out-of-control pork when the presidency and Ongress where under the same party’s control demonstrated how pork can be used politically. During that time, it was a partnership between the president and Congress.
In the case where the president and Conressional majorites are of opposite parties, this would be a way for the president to get around Congress while boostng the electability of his own party members.
It’s the president’s ability to pick and choose which items to veto and which to okay that presents the problem, IMO. He can influence Congressional elections this way. The authenticity of Congressional elections is already threatened by re-districting. We don’t neeed additional means to distort them further.
On wether or not there is a constitutional flaw, I’m undecided. As times change, it’s only natural that new challenges would emerge, but I’m leary of toying with the Constitutuon itself via Amednments.
They;re too hard to undo, should the results turn out to be unsavory.
Even on the subject of what pork is, it depends on how you look at it. It’s true that it enbles special interests, but it’s also true that it can enable job creation. In areas like Michigan a little portk seems absolutely justified if it would increase jobs, and I say that without knowing what the politics in Michigan consists of.
Rather than mess with the Constitution, it seems to me this could be handled with rules managing porl. insertions. That pork items be openly enumerated and defended seems like a doable requirement, If this causes too much delay in passing an impotant bill, then maybe the additionas don’t belong on that bill.
Maybe there should be Special Projects bills, presented and debated on their own merits?
I note, though, that even modest improvements in transparency have had some effect.
Watchdog groups and the disgust of tthe public can get through to Washington.
It takes vigilance by the citizenry to safeguard our instittutions. The Constituion, with or withougt new amendments can not do it alone, if the public remains disinterested.