orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/07/85)
> > If you want to curb the "rampant fiscal irresponsibility" of your > elected representatives, demand the line-item veto! > > charli Given the enormous amount of power which already resides in the Presidency it would be the gravest threat to our system of checks and balances to give the President the line-item veto. We have already witnessed Presidents (namely Johnson, Nixon and Ford) waging war involving a half-million men without any official declaration of War by the Congress. We have just witnessed economic sanctions against Nicaragua and South Africa placed into effect solely upon the power of the President with no Congressional approval. We have seen the Reagan administration usurp the intent of legislation against discrimination by interpreting the law as they wished-even in the face of court rulings against such actions. We have seen the Reagan administration unilaterally cutoff benefits for thousands of handicapped citizens despite the stated intent of legislation passed by Congress and statements by the authors of such bills. Only after a long succession of court rulings and appeals did the Reagan administration agree to restore the legally mandated benefits of the handicapped and disabled. I find it a profound irony that "conservatives" who supposedly object to the centralized power of State-run communism, now propose to invest the Presidency with even more power than it already possesses-just because a "conservative" happens now to be President. I would oppose the line-item veto *whoever* were President as an imminent threat to our nation's balance of powers. I believe in having a President elected accountable to the people *and* their elected representatives in Congress. I do not believe in an elected dictator who would no longer even be restrained by the purse-strings held by Congress. For that is what you are talking about when you talk about giving the President a line-item veto. While nominally the President would only have power to *veto* specific appropriations, in practice this power would give the President enormous leverage to get those appropriations he wants by veto blackmail. Unless the Congress agrees to thus and such appropriation the President wants, he will veto another appropriation the Congress wants. Appropriations in this wheeling-dealing arrangement may not decrease one wit- with such deals *both* appropriations may very well be passed. But it gives the President enormously *more* power to get whatever he wants. And who can stop him? All he needs is the support of one Congressperson over one-third to increase the already enormous power the President possesses. If the Congress wishes to restrain the President's power to wage war without Congressional approval by cutting off funds for such ventures, all the President has to do is line-item veto funds for the Congressional Budget Office or all the rest of the government, or other appropriations held dear by Congress. So much for Constitutional stipulations that only the Congress can declare War. This is an extreme case which may not occur. But it illustrates the enormous power provided by a line-item veto. Before "conservatives" rush into to support this measure they ought to stop and think: "what might this enormous power mean if a George McGovern liberal were President? Could he summarily cut all defense spending by 90%? What's to stop him? On the other hand, could he not threaten to veto all defense spending *unless* the Congress agrees to provide a minimum income of $20,000 to every person in the country? What's to stop him?" I happen to believe the authors of the Constitution had wisdom in arranging a system with a balance of powers. Already too much power has migrated to the Presidency. I think it would be a severe threat to our democratic system of government and checks and balances to vastly increase this power with a line-item veto. To charli's advice I answer: If you want to curb the "rampant fiscal irresponsibility" of your elected representatives, *elect representatives who refuse to approve 95% of budget requests or the requisite taxes to pay for those requests when they lead to deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars* !! Do not destroy our democratic system of government! tim sevener whuxn!orb