Line Item Veto Essay, Research Paper
When the House passed the Line Item Veto legislation, in a strong bipartisan vote of 294-134, it
took great
strides toward assuring the American people that the purpose of government is to serve the needs of
all
Americans. It also indicated its intention to seriously address the budgetary problems created by
forty years of
elitist pork barrel arrogance by the majority party in Congress. Congressional approval will also take
away a
sinister political weapon, designed to distort the images presented to the people. Without the Line
Item Veto the
President was forced to either accept or reject any legislative proposal as it was written. Congress
learned the
trick of tacking on extra money for special projects, ones that usually helped fellow Representatives
or Senators
get reelected. In more blatant times they have actually increased Congressional salaries. In the article
one
example is cited by Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. Added to a bill to provide California !
earthquake relief
last year was $10 Million for a train station in New York and funds for sugar cane growers in
Hawaii. The
public is seldom aware of this ?extra? spending. Without the Line Item Veto the President must either
sign or
veto the bill with the pork attached. This ploy thus becomes a political weapon. If the President
vetoes it his
opponents can accuse him of not wanting to help Americans in need. U.S. Presidents since Ulysses
S. Grant
have all called for the Line Item Veto. In the article the new Speaker of The House was quoted as
saying
?President after president has said it was something that would be good for America because it
would allow the
president to cut out some of the worst in spending.? Opposition to the Line Item Veto argues it
would tip the
balance of power too heavily toward the White House. Another point postulated by those
concerned suggest
the President could use this power to favor one politician over another by selective use in lining out
budget
busting features of a given piece of legislation. This action, I feel, would stir such wrath of the
American voter, no
President would be willing to risk it. On the other hand, a weak president could use the Line Item
Veto to cut
spending and gain favor with the voters. Without the Line Item Veto the American taxpayer will be
subject to a
Congress more concerned with reelection than in serving the needs of the country. It is currently a
system rife
with corruption. The problem, as I perceive it, and I must admit there was no hint of it in the article I
read in the
Southern Illinoisan, is the nature of humanity. I contend human nature is such that is impossible to
have that many
people that close to power and in control of that much money for that long a period of time without
having some
form of corruption. All the values that make up the culture of America are at stake here and the
camps of special
interest on the subject break down to two: the American people and elected officials. The founding
fathers
would be repulsed that an issue like this would even be necessary. I?m certain they never envisioned
a Congress
with such a leaning toward their own special interest. Solutions are simple, pass the Line Item Veto
or allow the
current system to assist in driving the country into bankruptcy. Obviously the first solution is the one
preferred
and, with the recent turnover in Congress, we are going in that direction. Representative Bill Baker
of California
was quoted as saying, ?This week, we?re going to give the president, whoever the president is, the
tools to help
balance the budget.?