Sections

Veto power

Clinton must refuse line-item bill

For years, American presidents have been using the concept of a line-item veto as justification for their respective inaction on issues, crying, "If only I had a line-item veto, none of this would have gotten through." Americans should be careful what they wish for.

Last Friday, Congress sent President Clinton a bill to create a line-item veto for the president. Support for the measure was substantial in both houses, passing 232-177 in the House and 69-31 in the Senate. The proposed bill would allow Clinton to veto any item in any spending bill that affects less than 100 taxpayers. Such a veto could then be overturned only by a two-thirds vote of both houses. If signed into law, the bill would exist for a period of eight years, at which time Congress would review the legislation.

America's power balance is in danger. The line-item veto presents a serious shift in legislative power and poses several major problems.

First, while the bill is a commendable gesture toward cutting pork spending in congressional legislation, it shifts the power to conduct such trimming entirely too far into the hands of the president. Due to the very nature of a line-item veto -- especially in light of a two-thirds majority vote to overturn it -- the president would become the spending-bill editor. It would empower the president to alter legislation, virtually unopposed. Unfavorable bills would be hacked and slashed until nothing substantial remains.

Congress would be stripped of its power to counteract the president's agendas. Piecemeal cuts would render Congress a fractured entity, incapable of rallying to overturn legislation by majority vote. Legislation then will have to be written with the president's special interests in mind -- not America's interests.

Moreover, the bill would present the future dilemma of having a president armed with extra veto power and allied to Congress controlled by his party. Without traditional checks and balances, corruption would overtake the government.

Furthermore, a line-item veto in the hands of a president opposed by Congress would create tremendous tension in the U.S. government. The legislative process itself might collapse under the strain of politicking, special interests and political agendas. Long-standing programs, such as federal student aid and the National Endowment for the Arts, might easily be cut with one swipe of a president's veto pen, as will valuable federal defense contracts. The party occupying the Oval Office would have control over who suffers. Clearly, this would give the president too much power.

The proposed bill would deal a devastating blow to the traditional American checks-and-balances system. Legislative spending reform is necessary, but not at the cost of the delicate 219-year-old power infrastructure. The line-item veto shifts tremendous power to the president -- power that is often difficult to counteract. Clinton should veto the proposed bill.