Obama offers Congress another way to slice pork
Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
President Barack Obama is sending a proposal to Congress that would make it quicker and easier to trim wasteful costs from U.S. congressional spending bills.
The “Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010” would enable the president to submit a package of cuts, or “rescissions,” to Congress after lawmakers pass the various appropriations bills that fund federal programs every year…
His proposal, which requires congressional approval, would give Obama and his successors a stronger hand in cutting items they do not support from spending bills.
The White House said the proposal differs from a line-item veto in which a president unilaterally cuts specific provisions from a spending bill. The Supreme Court has rejected a presidential line-item veto as unconstitutional.
Under Obama’s proposal, Congress would have to look at the president’s slate of suggested cuts as a package and, without making any amendments, give them an up-or-down vote within a specific period of time.
This would speed up the process used by presidents to reduce special provisions, commonly called “earmarks” or “pork,” that lawmakers add to spending bills, making them more expensive…
But with congressional elections in November and voters increasingly nervous over record spending deficits, the proposal is likely to find allies on Capitol Hill.
Overdue.
Frankly, I’d favor a line-item veto, as well. I think it could be written into law well enough to satisfy our 19th Century Supreme Court.
Are you sure you are willing to trust a president with the line item veto? I remember first hearing about such back when Reagan was president; would you trust him and all who followed with that power?
Beyond that, I think such an item would require an amendment, kind of like term limits. However, your mileage may vary.
Cheers
cleansweepbeaconhill
May 24, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Beacon Hill? Cripes.
I escaped from the South Shore – and Mass – 26 years ago.
1. A line item veto should include the usual opportunity to be overridden. No reason – in that case – to trust the president any less than Congress.
2. If you’ve been around either of the blogs I edit, you know I’m fervent in my opposition to term limits. At root, they are anti-democratic. You shouldn’t deprive the electorate of the opportunity to replace or maintain a representative.
I’ve labored through beaucoup incompetent pols maintained in office by gullible voters; but, that’s always the risk with democracy.
Wow. 3 paragraphs w/o sounding especially cynical. A potential record.
eideard
May 24, 2010 at 1:17 pm
How interesting. I was born near the South Shore.
I see your point about the line-item but I’m still not entirely convinced, mainly with all the wheeling and dealing that goes on behind the sight of the electorate.
And, I must admit, I’ve not read your other blogs, but I agree wholeheartedly with you on term limits. It’s little more than a feel-good band-aid that requires little effort on the part of the electorate; a bad thing for any representative government.
Thanks for writing.
cleansweepbeaconhill
May 24, 2010 at 1:35 pm