With the federal deficit soaring to a record $423 billion this year, many Americans who once scoffed at efforts to give line-item veto powers to the president are now willing to consider such a tool – or practically any tool – to restore spending discipline.
Unfortunately, the plan endorsed Monday by President George W. Bush may have a legal flaw similar to the 1996 line-item veto law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Congress would be wiser to forge a alternative weapon against waste by adopting a reform by an unlikely pair of Colorado budget bulldogs, Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Marilyn Musgrave.
You don’t have to defend the red ink now inundating the federal budget to worry that a line-item veto would change the delicate balance of congressional and executive powers built into the U.S. Constitution, which gave the sole power of the purse to Congress. A president empowered to withhold individual appropriations would have a powerful club over the legislative branch.
In contrast, the budget reform drafted last year by Udall and now backed by Musgrave and Tennessee “Blue Dog” Democrat Jim Cooper would force Congress to act – swiftly and publicly – on spending cuts identified by the president in transportation bills or appropriations acts. The president already has the power to propose such recisions, but Congress can – and usually does – ignore such requests. Udall’s bill would convert presidential recesion requests into bills required to receive public hearings and timely congressional action.
The Bush proposal is better than the version struck down in 1998 because it requires congressional approval of each of the president’s cuts, not the all-or-nothing vote of the earlier law. But the Bush plan still allows the president to kill an appropriation unless Congress votes, by a simple majority, to spend the money. In contrast, the Udall plan requires bills making the cuts must pass by majority votes before the items would be killed.
The difference could prove crucial in a court test because Bush’s plan still gives the president a power not envisioned by the Constitution. In contrast, Udall’s proposal only makes Congress do its duty by responding to recision requests in timely and open fashion. The beauty of this plan is that it puts a spotlight on waste. As Musgrave argues, if the president wants to veto a “bridge to nowhere” or another dubious item, Congress would be forced to defend such spending in full view of the public. Now, such controversial “earmarks” are often added to bills in closed conference committees with no formal floor votes.
Udall has also called for term limits for members of appropriations committees. Rotating these powerful spots, as Congress already does for other committee chairmanships, would encourage more members to challenge wasteful spending. Now, reformers are reluctant to challenge waste because they may incur the long-term enmity of the wastrels.
Neither the line-item veto nor term limits for appropriators will cure all of Congress’ budgetary ills. But together, they would be two long overdue steps on the road back to fiscal responsibility.
