President Reagan has demanded that Congress give him power to go at spending legislation with a razor rather than an executioner`s ax. Congress is reluctant to submit itself to the death of a thousand cuts, but what Congress fears is the best argument for giving the President the authority he seeks.
The first thing to recognize is that the line-item veto is not simply a mechanism to reduce the budget, though it certainly can be used for that by a President who is inclined to do so. Instead of having to try to kill with his veto a bill that includes a little for everybody, he can take tucks here and there in such a way that the finished product will survive an over-ride.
More broadly, though, if the President has the power to strike out specific spending projects from more generalized appropriations bills, this gives him the power to reward and punish legislators. Go along with me on my foreign policy program, it allows him to say, or the water project in your district is sunk.
The line-item veto, then, would make a significant, general shift in the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. And the way Congress has been behaving, it is time to tip the scales.
The legislature is not disciplined the way it once was. It is fragmented and vulnerable to the pressure of special interest groups. Log-rolling
–trading support of one bill for reciprocal support of another–is a hoary fact of legislative life, but today the logs are spinning out of control.
Likewise, the traditional legislative technique of loading up a favored bill with disfavored items to make them veto-resistant has been extended so far that Congress recently has taken to giving the President continuing resolutions that put him in the position of signing or bringing a substantial part of the whole government to a halt.
Something is needed to get this kind of thing under control. But the Constitution, of course, puts limits on the extent to which the balance of power among the branches of government can be changed by ordinary legislation. This has led to an argument that the line-item veto power can only be granted by the cumbersome and time-consuming process of constitutional amendment.
Here there are a few points to remember. First, a bill passed by Congress to give the President authority does not pose a threat to the constitutional mechanism the way one branch`s action to usurp another`s power would. For this reason, the courts would give Congress` action in this regard some deference. Second, the Constitution did not envision government by continuing resolution when it set forth the President`s veto power. Congress has been over-reaching its traditional power by its legislative gimmicks, not the President. The line-item veto seeks to redress a lost sense of balance in the federal government.
Finally, if Congress is as inventive in structuring a line-item veto provision as it has been in creating the need for it, surely it will succeed in finding a way to make the thing work without violating the Constitution.
The line-item veto would give the President a chance to impose some discipline on the unruly gaggle in Congress. It would not be unlimited. Congress could punish the President if he pushed his authority too far–in fact, it could even repeal the provision granting him the power.
The problems with granting the President a line-item veto have been overblown. The danger to the orderly processes of government today does not come from the line-item veto but rather from the lack of it.
