|
Contributors
Gary M. Galles - Contributor
Mr.
Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.
[go to Galles index]
 Kerry
And The Line-Item Veto
The Line-Item Veto and Fiscal Responsibility...
[Gary M. Galles] 8/13/04
In
an effort to establish his fiscal responsibility bona fides,
John Kerry has been touting support of a line-item veto (reworked
to survive the court
scrutiny that overturned it before), with rhetoric almost identical to
that used when it was part of Republicans' 1994 Contract With
America. He could "get
the pork and the waste, and the throwaway, and the special-interest deals
out of the system."
Unfortunately, however, while a president could use a line-item
veto to rein in federal government expansion by cutting out budgetary
pork, he could also use it to further expand government.
The line-item
veto could shrink unnecessary government, in the hands of a
president
determined to use it for that purpose.
It would work by eliminating the ability of those in Congress
to deliver on their logrolling agreements. The president could
void the legislative payoff to any party to a logrolling "contract," so
there would be less incentive for Congress to create one. In
particular, it would sharply erode the power of the current contract
enforcers--committee and subcommittee chairmen--to make good
on their reciprocal promises.
While a line-item veto could reduce Congressional pork, it
would increase presidential pork. The President would become
the only ultimate enforcer of Congressional negotiations, and
so would have to be included in every logrolling agreement, giving
him vastly increased leverage over legislation. And that leverage
just as easily be used to grow government as shrink it, if he
chose.
Using a
line-item veto to grow government simply requires the President
to threaten
carefully targeted item vetoes, unless
Congress passed his desired legislation. He could make every
individual item in every bill that benefited any recalcitrant
legislator disappear, unless he was given what he wanted. And
that would expand the government whenever what he wanted was "more."
Despite
claims that a president represents the people rather than special
interests,
a president has plenty of special interests.
He wants to help swing constituencies and large states that will
be competitive in the Electoral College, even at the expense
of those whose votes are not so crucial. He would have the incentive
to use his increased leverage to help states with "at risk" candidates
from his party, and to punish those with similarly situated opponents.
And the President has personal spending priorities, as well,
such as Kerry's promise to make health care a right.
A line-item veto would also drastically change the power of
Congressional minorities. When the President belongs to the minority
party in Congress, it would give that party far more power over
legislation, but if the President's party has a Congressional
majority, a line-item veto would almost eliminate any minority
party power. The minority's only power to advance their agenda
is by making legislative deals in exchange for support of strongly
favored policies, but their part of any such deals could always
be voided by the President.
Is a line-item
veto more likely to shrink or grow government in John Kerry's
hands?
He certainly has announced far more expansions
than contractions so far. And its potential to increase budgets
has not gone unnoticed by his party. For instance, in 1996, on "This
Week With David Brinkley," Al Gore (echoed by other administration
officials) said that Clinton would use the added bargaining power
conferred by a line-item veto to restore benefits he didn't want
cut by the historic welfare reform bill that was being forced
on him after two vetoes.
Supporting a line-item veto seems like a good way to prove
one's commitment to cut federal pork. But it only works that
way with a president determined to make America more fiscally
prudent. And it would also give more power to a president determined
to grow the government further. Which would John Kerry be? The
laundry list of new initiatives he has already promoted leaves
that open to serious question. CRO
copyright
2004 Gary M. Galles
§
|
