Over 16,534,470 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
It finally happened. It took nearly 17 months, but President Obama finally has an idea worth supporting. That may be a bit harsh; after all, he did punch through health care reform and is poised at the brink of repealing "Dont ask, dont tell". Oh wait... I don't consider those things to be good things. But finally, Obama has a proposal that even conservatives might like: the line item veto. Long sought after by presidents before him, Obama's version of the measure modifies an earlier line-item veto used by former President Bill Clinton until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1998.
On paper, the line item veto looks good. The president would have 45 days after signing a spending bill to pluck out pork barrel spending and send the offending items to Congress for elimination. Within 25 days, Congress would have to vote his recissions up or down without amendments. This type of accountability could possibly cause Congress to own up to excessive spending. Surely legislators would think twice before tacking on expensive projects and waste to otherwise legitamate bills under the threat of public humiliation at being singled out.
How times have changed. Not many years ago, Obama voted along with other Senate Democrats to filibuster a similar measure put forth by then President George W. Bush. The whole thing would be so ironic. Obama, who has spent more money than any president in history, is suddenly becoming fiscally responsible. If only it weren't such an obvious attempt to seize even more power. That's why, even though it looks good on the surface, giving Obama line item veto power is a bad idea.
White House Budget Director, Peter Orszag, told reporters this week that the administration feels conditions are ripe for Congress to approve the measure because spending has grown so rapidly and the economic conditions have changed so much. "...ongoing deficits have become a growing concern," he said.
Does anyone else see the humor in that? All that spending and the growing deficit are directly tied back to Obama. He asked for more aggressive spending than anyone ever before, and thanks to a mostly Democratic Congress, he got what he asked for. Now he has the nerve to turn around and say in essence that Congress isn't controlling the spending, he needs to do it for them.
Analysts predict that even if Obama gets the power he' after, it won't likely lead to big cuts. Of $43 trillion in spending since 1990, presidents have propsed rescinding a mere $20 billion, and Congress has approved only $6 billion in rescissions. This could all be smoke and mirrors and a distraction cleverly designed to avert the public's attention away from the $200 billion tax extenders bill the administration is working to pass. In the wrong hands, though, the power of line item veto could be a very dangerous thing indeed. As it is solely in the hands of the Commander in Chief's discretion, he will single out only that spending with which he disagrees (which, so far, hasn't been much). Imagine a president who opposes all Republican spending or vice versa. It could easily become a tool of coersion used to bully political opponents by threatening to pull spending measures of political foes and hold them up for public scrutiny.
I wish this proposition could work to hold Congress accountable for what they spend. There is no question that needs to happen, but a better way- one that is Constitutional and will work starting today- is for Obama to simply veto any and all legislation that comes across his desk which contains any extra spending whatsoever. If he would do that and continue to nullify these pork-laden bills, Congress would quickly get the picture.
