From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:21:43 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <palmer.724454225@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>>My preferred solution would be to create a separate office, much like the
>>Fed, whose whole purpose would be to line-item veto pork before the
>>president exercised his option to sign or veto.  It likely would require a
>>constitutional ammendment.  Removing the line-item veto from the political
>>arena (even if only a small distance, as in the Fed) could lead to a
>>substantial reduction in pork, as opposed to whatever pork the president
>>insisted upon.
>
>Unfortunately for your solution, one person's pork is another person's
>cyclotron, interstate bypass, agricultural research study, etc.  Everything
>the government does has to be done SOMEwhere, even the GOOD things (please
>just assume for the sake of argument that it is *possible* that it may
>accidentally do something good).

That is a general argument against line-item vetos, not just my scheme.
I don't have a problem with that; but if everyone claims there is a vast
amount of pork, and it is distinguishable from the important "beef", then
why shouldn't pork be cut from the budget?

>Ammendment proposals (for bills, not the constitution) are never initiated
>by a rousing "SSOOOOWWEEEEEEE! PIGG PIGG!" in conference committee or on
>the floor.  Your separate office would be no better equipped to handle the
>issue of "unneeded" expenditures than any other body politic, and might
>actually start taking actions you attribute to the president: insisting
>upon it's own pet project funding to let others through.

Consider the original rationale for separation of powers.  Why is the
president equipped with a veto?  Is he better equipped than Congress to
handle these issues?  What I'm proposing is an addition to the system
of checks and balances with the intention of reducing yet another kind
of excess.

>And from a nonelected position!!  You can't even vote the bastards out!!
>
>I can sympathize with what you're trying to accomplish, but I think you
>need to keep looking for a less scary proposal.

Most judges are in non-elected positions.  Not to mention the Fed.  It would
only be scary if there were not checks and balances.  Just as congress and
the president could terminate the Fed (which they created), so this new
creation could be terminated in the event of abuse.  (Such as selection
of a closet libertarian to run it.  :-)

I'd be interested to hear of any studies comparing performance/corruption/etc
of elected versus appointed judges.

Mike Huben

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change
its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety
with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to
combat it."     --Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural, 4-Mar-1801
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24559 talk.politics.misc:63914