Line Item Veto: The Never-ending Financial Debate

 

During these times of economic uncertainty, every spending made by the government is always meticulously scrutinized. For every dollar spent, a lot of measures are taken to make sure that it will trickle down to the last in the economic chain, making sure that everyone benefits from it. Apart from this, the government enforces many other measures to maximize spending. One such measure is line item veto. Although not supported by the Constitution, it is granted to all but 7 state governors and in some instances was granted to the president to ensure that the economy will regain balance and not a single dime is wasted. The veto prominently takes place during economic difficulties such as recessions.

Budget Formulation and Executive Reaction

In the process of the formulation of national budget, it is Congress that is given the power to prepare the budget. Insertions, changes, allocations and prioritizations for line items are battled at in Congress. However, the executive reserves the power to object to certain items—the line veto. In this case, the entire bill is not vetoed per se, but only a specific item which the executive, upon its judgment, deems unsuitable. It is an individual item that is rejected and not the entire legislation.

In the United States, the line item veto is a power held only by state governors, although it was proposed to several presidents several times. The rationale behind the veto is to keep a close watch on financial legislation, ferret out riders and reduce pork barrel legislation. On the other hand, unlike state governors, the president cannot veto specific items in a bill in the same manner that state governors can, only that they can oppose an entire legislation. As such, line item budgeting will not be touched by the president but only by state governors.

Haggling Between the Congress and the Executive

Although cited as unconstitutional by a Supreme Court ruling in 1998, several presidents—Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton—have flirted with the idea of vetoing certain provisions of a bill without killing the bill in its entirety. These presidents saw the veto as their means of controlling federal spending and reducing the budget deficit. With this, they could censure what they consider to be wasteful pork barrel allocations without having to resort to rejecting the more notable provisions of a bill. This is the main argument proffered by the executive whenever the subject arises.

The legislative, for its part, objects to granting the president the line item veto. They reason that in so doing, they will be giving the president much more power than actually needed or guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislators feared that such an act would put into jeopardy line item budgets they consider to be crucial in delivering service to their constituents. Because the veto will give the president powers such as ferreting undesirable items in appropriation bills, scrutinizing bills that creates or augments entitlements and bills granting tax breaks or tax holidays while approving only those provisions that suit the executive.

The Future of Line Veto

Although not granted by the Constitution, the conditions during economically challenging times tick some presidents to adopt some measures to alleviate pressure on the economy and plead for line item veto. Though diametrically opposing such measure, Congress at one point conceded, allowing then-president Bill Clinton to hold the veto on some legislation. Even with that, Congress was fully aware that the setup entails serious constitutional problems. Members of Congress recognized that the veto undermined their power as legislators. To their relief, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled that the veto was unconstitutional. However, the executive and Congress alike fully knew that as long as economic uncertainties are the realities of the future, the debate on line item vetoes will pop out every now and then.