Evening star., 1938-01-09
Sound Arguments Support
The item Veto" Proposal
y. S. Finances Prompt Earnest Consideration of
Long. .Foiled Plan-Fear of Political
Reprisas Is Hurdle

gress, but they have met with little favor.
There have been approximately 80 such
resolutions offered. Only 10 Of these were
reported by House or Senate Judiciary
Committees, and only one received a IA
vorable report. 1t never passed the House.
President Arthur suggested to Congress-
In 1882 that grants of considerable sums
OF money for diverse and independent
schemes Of internal improvements" be sep
arated into distinct legislative enactments.
AS an alternative proposition he recon-
mended submission of a constitutional
amendment comforting on the President
, the authority to veto separate appropriation
items. No favorable action resulted. how
ever.
The principal purpose of the item veto
at this time would be to enable the Presi-
dent to eliminate pork barrel" items in
appropriation bills. The pork barrel
strategy is refinement of the technique
embodied i'll the back pay grab Instead
of trying to fatten his own pocketbook, the
legislator seeks to get as much as possible
for his home district. On election day, un-
fortunately, his stature as statesman all
too often is measured by the size Of appro-
! priations he has been able to get for the
folks back home. and it would be a very dull
Congressman, indeed, who did not appre-
ciate the significance of this. AS a result,
many legislators have been more than
willing to vote for a colleagues pork-barrel
project if the colleague. in a similar spirit
of generosity, would vote for his. The re-
suit has been marked growth in the num-
ber of such projects at an annual cost Of
many millions of dollars to the Govern
ment.
Appropriations Strategy Unbeatable.
1t has been deemed good strategy to
| incorporate these items in general appro-
priatlon bills since an individual piece of
pork-barrel legislation might easily meet
| with veto. The result has been the de-
velopment of appropriation bills which Sem
ator Vandenberg. in an article written for
the Saturday Evening Post described as
"a cross between q mammoth catchall,
grab bag, jigsaw puzzle and an omelet." I"
Congress, the Senator from Michigan con-
tinued, "long since learned that II you put
little something for each of 435 congress
sional districts in one appropriation basket,
pretty nearly everybody will help carry the
basket"
The President, not being subject to such
direct pressure from the voters and being
able to take broader view Of govern
mental dif,yvoc hos. L.
Congressman, would be, in 4 much better
position to veto pork-barrel items 49,
It will be recalled that it was only with
much reluctance" that President Roose-
welt signed the $l32,00O,000 Interior De-
partment appropriation bill enacted at the
last session because it contained an appro-
priation of sl4,4s3 oo0-$lo, 600. 900 more
than the Presidents budget estimate-for
the support of vocational education during
the fiscal year 1888
There is the further fact that the con-
stitutions of 80 States authorize the Gov
ernor to veto single items in appropriation
Oils, and 1t seems to have worked well
in practice Senator Byrd, Democrat, of
Virginia, an earnest advocate of economy,
said it had worked splendidly" in his
State.
The principal stated objection against
the selective veto is that it has q tendency
10 undermine the responsibility of Con-
gress for the performance of one of its
most important functions-the determine.
ton OF how much money shall be spent
and in what ways it shall be spent,
Reprisal Fear Factor.
The apprehension that the bitterness
engendered by the successful fight against
Mr.. Roosevelt's Supreme Court reorganiza-
tlon Dill has not yet been forgotten will
oe more important factor, however.
When that measure went down to defeat.
there were many threats of reprisals
against the legislators who opposed it
threats that caused grave concern to Sen.
ators and Representatives who must run
1or reelection in November If the Presi-
dent had the power to veto appropriation
items for their home districts or States
ana the disposition to use it for the
improper purpose of accomplishing their
defeat at the polls, it would constitute a
weapon few members Of CONGRESS cou,d
cope with successfully
This point Of view was expressed in th.
following question asked a witness favor.
Ing the item veto in hearings held on such
proposal in 1913 by the House judiciary
Committee:
you say 1t would do away with loq-
rolling Exchange Of votes on pork-barrel
items) 1t might do away with los-rollinp
IN the House and Senate among Senators
and Representatives, but would it not
simply transfer the log-rollinR to the White
House? Would not he who has influence
with the President get his approximation
through, while the man without sucb in
nuence or power would have his appropria.
ton vetoed?"
Taft Distrusted Proposal.
President Taft, after leaving the White
House, expressed sentiments In similar
vein: while for some purposes" he said.
1T would be useful for the Executive to
have the power Of partial veto, II We could
always be sure Of its wise and consctenu-
Gus exercise, I am not entirely sure it would
be safe provision. It would greatly en-.
large the influence Of the President, al.
ready large enough from patronage and
party loyalty and other causes"
The pending proposals would give the