From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Line-Item Veto: Why Now? (was Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:15:07 GMT
 <farenebt.721921629@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> <4013@randvax.rand.org> <wiggins.721950196@terra.cecer.army.mil>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <wiggins.721950196@terra.cecer.army.mil>, wiggins@cecer.army.mil (Don Wiggins) writes:
> jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:
> 
>>In article <farenebt.721921629@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
>>>Actually, Foley spoke of a compromise, most vetos require a 2/3
>>>to override but he suggested that a lineitem veto only require
>>>a simple majority. Thus giving the prez power to cut pork
>>>no one believes in while not allowing the prez to get too partisan
>>>in his penstrokes.
> 
>>In my view, the 50% rule *does* allow partisan pork-slashing under the
>>current distribution of votes.  With 2/3, some Republicans have to
>>be brought on board to override a veto -- precisely the problem the Dems
>>were having with Bush's vetoes -- and the distribution in Congress is no
>>more favorable for the Dems than before.  With 50%, the Dems themselves
>>can push through their pork if they want to.

> True, but at least members of Congress _may_ have to go on record as
> being in full support of those projects.  However, I think getting such
> a provision passed in the first place is going to be nearly impossible.

It is very interesting, to say the least, that the SAME power that Reagan and
Bush fought for (lamely, yet futilely) for twelve years may now be handed to
Clinton on the proverbial silver platter... at least a watered-down version of
it.  All these years, Congress has denounced the idea of ANY kind of direct
budgetary control by the President -- line-item, recission, etc -- as "tilting
the balance of power to the Executive." 

What, pray tell, is the difference NOW?  Yes, Clinton is a Democrat, but that 
beggars the question.  Democrat or not, any version of the line-item veto would
*still* "tilt the balance of power" -- would it not?  And let us assume, for
now, that sooner or later that power will fall to a Republican president. 
Does anyone care to speculate (in a thoughtful fashion) WHY Congress is
suddenly *volunteering* to do this? 

Just to start the ball rolling, I will speculate (out of the blue) that
Congress may wish to have a means to deflect taxpayer ire from itself when
spending -- and the dreaded deficit -- have expanded substantially at the time
of the 1994 elections.  This will reinforce the oft-stated charge that "it's
all the President's fault" -- the rallying cry of the campaign.  I leave it to
others to imagine the campaign rhetoric and finger-pointing by Congressional
incumbents. 

The floor is open...

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..." 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton