eem@jc3b21.UUCP (Emery E. Mandel) (02/18/86)
This morning I saw a Senator on CNN saying that if the President got his line item veto, it would upset the separation of powers and allow the President to say, "If you don't vote for this piece of legislation I'm pushing, I'll veto this program that is vital to your area from the budget." He said that this would make it possible for the President to virtually be a dictator. I can certainly see this is possible, especially in this country, the way it is now. But, one has to ask how come there are over 35 governors out there who have line item veto and who, apparently, haven't tried to dictate in the manner mentioned earlier... Line item veto power would, on the good side, allow the President to have greater control over the budget which has put us in DEEP debt over the years. Any ideas? Emery Mandel "Gee, sure is warm down here in Florida..."
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/21/86)
> This morning I saw a Senator on CNN saying that > if the President got his line item veto, it would > upset the separation of powers and allow the > President to say, "If you don't vote for this > piece of legislation I'm pushing, I'll veto this > program that is vital to your area from the > budget." If he vetos something that actually *is* vital from the budget, he will lost popularity for doing it, and 2/3 of congress should be able to agree to override him. If 2/3 of congress can't agree that this item is a good thing, then maybe it wasn't actually vital at all. > [he said the president could be like a] (sorry for the paraphrase, but I deleted one line too many) > dictator. I can certainly see this is possible, > especially in this country, the way it is now. Dictators tend to be people who can force a country's government to do things extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Exactly how would a line-item veto enable the pres to do this? > But, one has to ask how come there are over > 35 governors out there who have line item veto > and who, apparently, haven't tried to dictate > in the manner mentioned earlier... > > Line item veto power would, on the good side, allow > the President to have greater control over the budget > which has put us in DEEP debt over the years. Agreed. One would hope that a line item veto would spell the end to tobacco and milk price supports, and many other 'pet' cash flows various factions support. > Emery Mandel -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (02/23/86)
>Line item veto power would, on the good side, allow >the President to have greater control over the budget >which has put us in DEEP debt over the years. > >Any ideas? It worked reasonably well when he was Governer of California, as I recall (even though I didn't agree with his politics). Maybe they could try it for the rest of his term as an experiment. He seemed to really get a kick out of using his blue pencil. I think that was his favorite part of the job ... "If you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all ..." (quote from guess which famous actor)
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/24/86)
> From Jeff Sonntag: > Dictators tend to be people who can force a country's government to do > things extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Exactly > how would a line-item veto enable the pres to do this? > Let us take an example which has just recently come to light in which the Administration has deliberately sidestepped Congress. Last year the Congress voted for a ban on any anti-satellite weapons testing because the Soviet Union has stopped all its anti-satellite weapons testing. The ban states that no anti-satellite weapons tests are to be funded against targets in space. The Pentagon therefore has decided that this ban only specifies that no tests will be conducted against targets in space which are actual satellites but they *can* be done against stars or other "lightsources". This is already a deliberate thwarting of the will of Congress. One can only imagine how much worse such abuses would be with a line-item veto. > > From Emery Mandel: > > Line item veto power would, on the good side, allow > > the President to have greater control over the budget > > which has put us in DEEP debt over the years. This makes the totally erroneous assumption that the President is *NOT* responsible for the current incredible deficits. This assumption is *WRONG* as I have tried to point out numerous times. In point of fact the Executive Branch (i.e. the President) has the responsibility to submit the budget proposal to the Congress. The budgets proposed by President Reagan have been ones proposing deficits in the hundreds of billions. The Congress in turn has actually *CUT* deficits in its final approved budgets. At the same time however, Congress has approved 95% of Reagan's proposed deficits. The fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan is most evident in his latest budget proposal which proposes an increase of $40 billion in military spending, cuts of some $20 billion in domestic spending for things like AMTRAK, student financial aid, the Agricultural Extension Service, etc. and no new taxes to pay for the consequent hundred plus billion dollar deficit. It is Ronald Wilson Reagan, more than anyone else, who is responsible for the current monstrous deficits. Giving the President more such power is a prescription for disaster for our system of checks and balances. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/24/86)
> From Jeff Sonntag: > Dictators tend to be people who can force a country's government to do > things extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Exactly > how would a line-item veto enable the pres to do this? > Let us look at another example, even more mean-spirited, of how only through Congressional *funding* pressure *PLUS* judicial rulings was a malicious Reagan Administration policy changed. The Reagan Administration decided that thousands of people receiving disability payments were simply lazy malingerers who did not deserve any help from the government unlike defense contractors and corporations. Certainly it would not be objectionable to examine such cases and see if such were indeed the case. This is *NOT* what the Reagan Administration did. What the Reagan Administration did was to summarily cut the benefits of thousands of disabled Americans without following due process. The Congress objected to this procedure and declared it was not the intent of legislation to cut such benefits without due process. (this is because Congressmen no doubt were getting requests from local constituents for help with such problems) The Reagan Administration still refused to reinstate the disability payments. It was taken to the Courts and finally after being taken to higher courts, the Reagan administration agreed to reinstate thousands of people cut from disability rolls without due process. It was only through the combined pressure of Congress and the Courts that the Administration changed its arbitrary imposition of policy. Without funding pressure the Congress would have no effective tool to oppose such unilateral and arbitrary policies. tim sevener whuxn!orb
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/25/86)
> > From Jeff Sonntag: > > Dictators tend to be people who can force a country's government to do >> things extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Exactly > > how would a line-item veto enable the pres to do this? > > Let us take an example which has just recently come to light > in which the Administration has deliberately sidestepped Congress. > Last year the Congress voted for a ban on any anti-satellite weapons > testing because the Soviet Union has stopped all its anti-satellite > weapons testing. The ban states that no anti-satellite weapons tests > are to be funded against targets in space. The Pentagon therefore has > decided that this ban only specifies that no tests will be > conducted against targets in space which are actual satellites > but they *can* be done against stars or other "lightsources". > This is already a deliberate thwarting of the will of Congress. > One can only imagine how much worse such abuses would be with a > line-item veto. They're going to be testing nuclear weapons against stars? The one nearby, or one of the ones many light years away? How will they tell whether the nuclear weapon went off or not? Seriously, what does this have to do with a line-item vetoe? Abuses like this take place all of the time, and we have a branch of the government set up to interpret the law. I'm sure there is *some* mechanism within our government to prevent the executive branch from ignoring the law. As for the rest of the article, Tim, I appreciated the Reagan bashing, but I really don't think that I should decide whether I want a line-item veto for the president based on who the president happens to be right now. After all, he'll be gone in a coupla years, and we can all breath a sigh of relief. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/25/86)
> > From Jeff Sonntag: > > Dictators tend to be people who can force a country's government to do >> things extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Exactly > > how would a line-item veto enable the pres to do this? > > Let us look at another example, even more mean-spirited, of how > only through Congressional *funding* pressure *PLUS* judicial rulings > was a malicious Reagan Administration policy changed. > The Reagan Administration decided that thousands of people receiving > disability payments were simply lazy malingerers who did not deserve > any help from the government unlike defense contractors and corporations. > Certainly it would not be objectionable to examine such cases and > see if such were indeed the case. This is *NOT* what the Reagan > Administration did. What the Reagan Administration did was to > summarily cut the benefits of thousands of disabled Americans without > following due process. The Congress objected to this procedure and > declared it was not the intent of legislation to cut such benefits > without due process. (this is because Congressmen no doubt were getting > requests from local constituents for help with such problems) > The Reagan Administration still refused to reinstate the disability > payments. It was taken to the Courts and finally after being taken > to higher courts, the Reagan administration agreed to reinstate > thousands of people cut from disability rolls without due process. > It was only through the combined pressure of Congress and the Courts > that the Administration changed its arbitrary imposition of policy. Exactly how would a line-item veto have enabled Uncle Ron to ignore the court's ruling? And how did congress's pressure help here - bringing the problem to the judicial branch's attention? That's what they're there for. > > Without funding pressure the Congress would have no effective tool > to oppose such unilateral and arbitrary policies. How did they use 'funding pressure' in this instance to cause Ron to back down? I didn't see any mention of that in your article. And just what is 'funding pressure', and how would a line-item veto relieve congress of this tool. (And what evidence do you have to show that congress has been using this tool in a benificial way?) > tim sevener whuxn!orb -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/26/86)
I have been correctly criticized for focussing primarily upon the
Reagan administration's various attempts to get around the will of
Congress in criticizing the line-item veto.
But the problem applies *regardless* of whether the President is
"liberal" or "conservative" - the problem is that unless the
Congress has the power of the purse in the full sense they were
granted it by the Constitution, that Presidents of whatever persuasion
will have undue powers greater than any they have ever had before.
Congress, on the other hand, will be emasculated and weak.
Funding is absolutely *critical* to any laws. Without the funds to
enforce a law, it becomes a dead issue. For example: in 1967
the Congress passed a law in line with Lady Bird Johnsons pet project
calling for the banning of all billboards on federal highways.
Have you noticed the disappearance of billboards in the last 20
years? Of course not - because virtually no funding was granted to
enforce this law, nothing was ever done. (much like some pollution laws)
In the battle over funding the President has major advantages.
The Presidency is (nominally) in the control of one person. Therefore it
(the executive branch) can easily speak with one voice, The Congress
on the other hand involves 535 people each representing districts with
widely varying interests. It is this broad base of competing interests
that makes the Congress in some rough sense representative of the
competing interests in the nation. Given these competing interests
it is extremely difficult to get two thirds of the Congress to agree,
particularly on controversial issues. It is also easier because of
these split interests for Presidents to pit one group against another.
Can you imagine the Congress passing funding to enforce the Civil Rights
Act in 1965 with a two-thirds majority if there had been an anti-Civil
Rights President in office? Or more to the point, do you suppose the
Congress could have passed the Air and Water Pollution Acts it did
pass in the 70's despite Nixon's opposition? Nixon "impounded" funds
destined for sewage treatment programs - do you suppose he would have
hesitated for an instant in line-item vetoing such funds completely?
These are some things liberals generally support which would probably
not have been passed with a line-item veto.
On the other hand, there are some things which conservatives support
which would face the same fate against a hostile President.
It would be very difficult for practically all major weapons systems
to attain a two thirds majority in the face of a Presidential
line-item veto. The MX missile would of course never garner such
support (altho even many conservatives concede the MX is a turkey)
but then neither would cruise missiles, the B1 bomber, increased
spending on conventional forces and many other such items.
In both these cases Congress would have no power to override an
opposing President if a third of the Congress supported the President.
Moreover, I think it is just plain naive to dismiss the argument that
the President would *not* use the line-item veto to horsetrade for
funding that s/he desires by threatening to line-item veto funding
s/he does not desire. There is horse-trading now. That is politics.
Right now the President offers to support such and such funding
Congressman Smith wants if she will support such and such funding
the President wants. Armed with the line-item veto the Presidents
power in this bargaining process will become dictatorial. Nor
does the line-item veto have to be waved as a public warning in all
the press for it to be effective. Seldom does the press report
the horse-trading and jockeying that occurs now between various
Congressmen trading favors and votes and the President doing the same.
Such pressure would be exerted quietly but quite effectively.
Only in extreme cases (if ever) would the President raise the
threat of line-item vetoing Congressionally favored legislation unless
s/he gets the funding s/he wants.
The line-item veto would be a disaster for the balance of powers
outlined in our Constitution. It offers the prospect of a virtual
elected dictator which I find very scarey.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
jj@alice.UUCP (02/26/86)
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You don't understand. Tim S knows for SURE that Reagan is bad, so he doesn't NEED any evidence. :-( Seriously, Tim, you ought to look a bit harder at the Social Security screw-up, and see just WHO, and WHERE the abuses were. Oddly enough, you may find antagonized Reagan opponents hoping to embarrass Reagan. Wouldn't that be a change, now, and wouldn't it show the ethics of those responsible. You know, Tim, over the years you've blamed Reagan for a lot of things. No, make that EVERYthing. It's very interesting how you are very careful to not acknowledge when Reagan does something you agree with, now isn't it, or is it perhaps that you don't notice, since you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the man is evil beyond imagnination? RayGun is far from perfect, Tim, but what have you offered us as an alternative? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Sure, you want to complain, but how about offering some constructive suggestions, like perhaps how to get a reasonable non-extremist into the president's office? Why do we have to choose between Mondull and RayGun? Carturd and RayGun? Why not choose between Dominici and Bradley? Why not Fenwick and Byrd? Why are we going to have to choose between Bush and Cuomo? GAK! -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LOTS OF PATIENCE, BUT THEY CAN FIGHT BACK! "You're loosin' 'em, you're loosin' 'em, hold up your trousers high!" (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/27/86)
In article <563@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >Funding is absolutely *critical* to any laws. Without the funds to >enforce a law, it becomes a dead issue. For example: in 1967 >the Congress passed a law in line with Lady Bird Johnsons pet project >calling for the banning of all billboards on federal highways. >Have you noticed the disappearance of billboards in the last 20 >years? Of course not - because virtually no funding was granted to >enforce this law, nothing was ever done. (much like some pollution laws) > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > The remark about Lady Bird's pet billboard project sets me to wondering how old you are. You must be too young to remember what the highways were like before her campaign. It most certainly *did* make a *marked* difference. Things were getting out of hand for a while there... -- --MKR When in Rome, do as the ancient Etruscans used to do before they became extinct because of the things they used to do.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (02/27/86)
> This morning I saw a Senator on CNN saying that > if the President got his line item veto, it would > upset the separation of powers and allow the > President to say, "If you don't vote for this > piece of legislation I'm pushing, I'll veto this > program that is vital to your area from the > budget." He said that this would make it > possible for the President to virtually be a > dictator. I can certainly see this is possible, > especially in this country, the way it is now. > But, one has to ask how come there are over > 35 governors out there who have line item veto > and who, apparently, haven't tried to dictate > in the manner mentioned earlier... > > Line item veto power would, on the good side, allow > the President to have greater control over the budget > which has put us in DEEP debt over the years. > > Any ideas? > > Emery Mandel The problem here is indeed the concentration of power, not the budget. The very fact that we have 50 governors prevents them to exercise to much power, the scope of state government is much smaller. There is nothing which supports an implicit idea in Emery's posting that the President is better disposed toward solving the budget problem than houses of Congress. To the contrary, the budgets he offers are full of one-sided bias. On one side we have proposals to look for hyper-expensive defence systems (Star Wars, ultra-fast airplane and others), on the other side proposals to scrap legal services and passanger trains. Other presidents may have different set of pet ideas, and in every case we are dealing with things levels of magnitude larger than anything which may be proposed by a governor. Piotr Berman
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (02/27/86)
> Agreed. One would hope that a line item veto would spell the end to > tobacco and milk price supports, and many other 'pet' cash flows various > factions support. > > > Emery Mandel > -- > Jeff Sonntag One could hope that Reagan would do something agains god old Jessie Helms, but I am not the one. One could hope that Reagan would do something against duplicating, inefficient and expensive defence systems, but again I am not the one. Milk price support has so bipartisan support that I would caution you against any optimism. The real issue is that the President (whoever he is) will be able to blackmail each faction by keeping its project a hostage (like auto and steel quotas for the steel-belt, water projects for the West, sugar quotas for Louisiana etc. etc.) and force his pets through. By similar means he could diminish support to some programs which do not cost very much, but are opposed for purely ideological reasons (like LSC). Similarly, President could use the increased power to push through controversial appointments, and this is the area where his power is already to large (witness his board of LSC which is at war with the goals of Legal Services approved by Congress). I repeat, we are talking here not about some efficiencies, but about naked power. I agree that one-line veto would not make President a dictator, but it would be a large step in this direction. Piotr Berman
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (03/01/86)
Is the line item veto a step away from democracy in the name of efficiency? Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/01/86)
> Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You don't understand. Tim S knows for SURE that > Reagan is bad, so he doesn't NEED any evidence. :-( > > Seriously, Tim, you ought to look a bit harder at the Social Security > screw-up, and see just WHO, and WHERE the abuses were. Oddly > enough, you may find antagonized Reagan opponents hoping to embarrass > Reagan. Wouldn't that be a change, now, and wouldn't it show the > ethics of those responsible. > > (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj Sorry, what is wrong about Social Security? It is solvent due to dedicated taxes, and in the light of growing expected time that people will spend in their retirement the increase of those taxes is perfectly within reasonable expectations. Reagan himself was flip-flopping on this issue and is difficult to assign him any role in this problem, negative or positive. The major problem is not whether a president tends to be more ethical or less ethical than legislators. They seem to belong to the same species. The problem is the conflicting dangers of concentration of power and of government by stalemate. The problem is that one-line veto may contribute to both. Imagine that a president indeed will use one-line veto to promote his pet project and eradicate the ones he ideologically dislikes (like Legal Services currently). Imagine also that the budget is not balanced as yet. Then the majority (less than 2/3) of congress will be forced to pin down the president by denying him borrowing authority. It is done now, but the increased power of the executive may force the legislators to resort even more to their negative powers. As I see it, the budgetary process is little bit on the ridiculous side. Many budgets, thousands pages each, are written and not read, since their are based on assumptions unacceptable to the other sides of the process. I would propose to streamline the initial haggling by making it official that there are two rounds of budget negotiations. First would decide the draft, and the draft should by law have no more than say, 50k characters. All the budgets proposed in the second round would have to be consistent with the draft. On the other hand, dreaming that one person may be more couragious and ethical, so he will make correctly or the tough choices is pleasant, but not realistic. Remember that the difference between fat, muscle and bone is in the eye of beholder (Weinberger will insist to you that his department is lean and mean, others will disagree, some people see wellfare cheaters spending food-stamps on vodka, others see malnurished children etc. etc.). Piotr Berman
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (03/05/86)
>Is the line item veto a step away from democracy in the name of efficiency?
Well, I am not clear about whether it is a good idea in theory, but
it really did seem to work pretty well in California when Reagan was
Governor. I would suggest trying it for a couple years to see how it
works.wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/05/86)
In article <1409@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >but I really don't think that I should decide whether I want a line-item >veto for the president based on who the president happens to be right now. >After all, he'll be gone in a coupla years, and we can all breath a sigh >of relief. Or a gasp of terror, or a groan of disgust... You just never know... (These might end up being "the good old days"... :-) Will