This morning, I learned on this site that the House will vote on a new line-item veto bill. The line-item veto has long been one item on a list of GOP proposals, like the balanced budget amendment, that are bad ideas offered up to pander to an angry and ill-informed electorate. Much to my surprise, I learned that the bill was basically a bi-partisan effort, co-sponsored by Congressperson, Rep, Chis Van Hollen, for whom I have great respect above and apart from his position as my representative.
I really have no idea why this GOP-favored, hare-brained scheme has the support of such an intelligent man, with experience as both a staffer and a Congressman, and who represents a safe Democratic district which is among the best educated congressional districts in the country. Join me below the squiggle as I express my concerns in greater detail.
The line-item veto was an idea that entered our national political dialogue when Ronald Reagan asked the Congress to give him a power that many Governors enjoyed -- to veto individual line-items in appropriations bills, without vetoing the entire appropriation. It was presented as a way for the Republican President to control the profligate spending of a Democratic Congress.
If you believe that the Congress is far more corrupt than the Executive ever could be -- subject to greater political pressures and more responsive to lobbying interests and more likely to serve the interests of campaign contributors -- then, the line-item veto may seem like a good way for the President to invalidate individual appropriations that may have been procured by undue influence that is contrary to the public interest.
Because of these strains of argument, the line-item veto is a politically popular bit of election-year pablum regularly offered up by canny politicians as a way to gain the support of voters who disapprove of the Congress and Washington, generally. Bill Clinton actually asked for and got the Congress to give him line-item veto power, but that was struck down by the federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
The Court's problem with the line-item veto was that it violated the Presentment Clause, which requires the Congress to pass all appropriations bills, and gives the President the power only to accept (sign) or veto the entire bill.
The proposed bill purportedly gets around the presentment issues by forcing the Congress to vote up-or-down on the President's line-item changes. I doubt that the courts will agree this scheme gets around the Presentment Clause problem, but this is hardly my biggest concern with respect to Rep. Van Hollen's sponsorship of this bill.
The bill, because it does attempt to get around the Presentment Clause, is fundamentally undemocratic. It would represent the biggest accretion of power in the Executive since the bad old Patriot Act days following the attacks of September 2001. Arguably, this could be the biggest transfer of power from the Congress to the President we have ever seen. That's why it's so amazing that it so far under the political radar.
My biggest concern, though, isn't that the bill is so undemocratic -- it is that the bill will be anti-Democrat...with a capital "D". The line-item does allow the President to substitute his wisdom for Congressional excess in a targeted way, but it only works one way. The power doesn't allow the President to substitute his own spending priorities. All he can do is strike down appropriations. Given the nature of the two parties, it cannot be denied that this is a power which a Republican President will use with considerable regularity to strike down disfavored appropriations by a Democratic Congress. Democratic Presidents will have far less occasion to strike down appropriations by Republican Congresses.
While it may be tempting to support the line-item for political reasons, the reality is that there would be very few votes to be gained in elections. In contrast, giving that power to a Republican President would result in regularly forcing Democratic representatives to take politically controversial and potentially damaging votes....in perpetuity. This is a a win-win-win-win-win......(etc.) proposition for the GOP. They win on the political issue of passing the line-item, and then they would win over-and-over again in debates about line-item appropriations vetoed by the President. It is short-sighted to support this scheme. It is bad governance and it is bad politics for a Democrat.
I am disappointed to see any Democrat support this proposal, but I am especially disappointed that Rep. Van Hollen would endorse it as a co-sponsor, given that he represents such a safe Democratic district and one that is well-educated enough to smell a bad political pander -- one which Democrats would come to regret.