Kerry re-introduces his line item veto bill

[karynnj]

In 2004, when Kerry ran for President, he proposed a method for doing something that would have the effect of a line item veto, but would give Congress the final say, which according to Kerry and others would make it Constitutional. The Congress would get the list of all the items that were struck out and they could accept all the deletions or reject all of them.

After Kerry lost, in an impressive show of principle, he continued to support this as a way to cut waste and introduced it- even with Bush as President. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=76144 (There used to be a fantastic photo of Kerry sitting at the table with Bush and mostly Republicans.

May 25, 2010. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), a longtime champion of a constitutional line-item veto, today introduced the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act to establish a line-item veto which will pass constitutional muster. Senator Kerry first introduced this legislation in 2006.

“The line-item veto isn’t a panacea, but it’s a tool to rein in wasteful spending and it puts lawmakers on notice that the budget will be scrubbed line by line for waste and abuse,” said Sen. Kerry. “I first introduced this legislation in 2006, and now with the White House supporting this initiative I believe we can pass this properly constructed, constitutional line-item veto this year. I believe that any President, Democrat or Republican, should have this weapon in their holster. I look forward to working with President Obama to make this proposal a reality”

Senator Kerry’s proposal for a constitutional line-item veto will allow the President to reduce pork barrel spending and save taxpayers billions of dollars. Under Kerry’s plan the President will be given the power to identify wasteful items in spending and tax legislation and submit changes to Congress to act on in an up-or-down vote. This plan is very similar to the proposal announced by the White House, though Senator Kerry’s proposal is not limited to discretionary spending.

From the Senate record, Frist introduced the bill -

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Talent, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Allard, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thune, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Thomas):

S. 2381. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide line item rescission authority; to the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. I am proud to say there are over 20 Senators who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I wish to thank Senator Kerry for his support, and for the support of all of the other original cosponsors who have joined me on this significant legislative reform proposal.

Kerry then said of that bill:

By. Mr. KERRY:

S. 2372. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of certain proposed cancellations of appropriations, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits; to the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. I am pleased to introduce legislation today that establishes a constitutional line item veto , which would allow the President to reduce pork barrel spending and save taxpayers billions of dollars. Congress has an opportunity this week in our debate on lobbying reform to take ethics reform seriously and take action to rid the federal budget of special interest projects. Giving the President the ability to target projects placed in the budget at the last minute at the request of a single lawmaker is a step in the right direction and a critical move toward needed transparency.

It is no secret that President Bush and I do not agree on many policy matters, but I fully support giving him this line item veto authority and I applaud the President's comments earlier today. I hope that Congress immediately takes up and passes this legislation, and I hope that President Bush will be able to use this new veto authority soon to get tough on wasteful spending.

Under the Republican-led House and Senate, pork-barrel spending has skyrocketed. Nearly $30 billion a year is being spent on projects that have never even been debated. For fiscal year 2005, appropriators added 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year's total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal year 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year's total of $22.9 billion. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on things like research to enhance the flavor of roasted peanuts and the infamous ``bridge to nowhere.'' We have the largest deficit in American history and Congress and the President must take action to get spending under control.

In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the ``Line Item Veto Act'', P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method used to give the President line item veto authority was unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize them to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.

We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the Constitution.
The key difference between what I am proposing and what the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's actions. The ``Line Item Veto Act'' allowed the President to cancel provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this arrangement. The Line Item Veto Act of 2006 is different. It will empower the President to suspend provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove of that suspension with an up or down vote. The provisions are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change addresses the Supreme Court's concerns.

I agree with President Bush's comments earlier today, it is indeed `time to bring this important tool of fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C.' I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass the Line Item Veto Act and I look forward to President Bush using this authority to reign in pork-barrel spending.

In 2006, the Democrats successfully filibustered it.

I think from this, that Obama supports it.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66518

(I don't know why the Park Forest, Illinois paper does such a great job covering Kerry, but it really does.)

[RandomThoughts]

1. Line item veto would give dictatorial powers to president.

It would be like a signing statement that would change the meaning of a bill.

It could stop things like extra items attached to a bill, but what it would do is make individual congress people have to negotiate with president on each item that they want kept in a bill.

It is a ridiculous proposal, however it is just a news story.

[ProSense]

3. Senator Feingold doesn't agree

Feingold

“I welcome the administration’s line-item veto proposal, which is very similar to the one I have introduced with Senator McCain, Representative Ryan and others. The administration’s proposal appears to be constitutional and would be a useful tool to help eliminate wasteful spending. I look forward to exploring the administration’s proposal during Wednesday’s hearing and working with the administration, as well as members from both parties, to advance this legislation and better safeguard taxpayer dollars.”

[RandomThoughts]

5. Feingold agreeing or disagreeing does not change my points.

I do agree it would allow for cutting expenses, but it would also only remove from laws, it would never add anything, it is Republican in nature, the idea of limiting government.

In theory congress should be able to do that same thing, the argument is the President would do that, what it really does is make congress have discussions with President not with others in congress, and in secret. It is a misperception of the effect, it moves to authoritarianism and back room deals.

So for those spending bills to get in, congress would have to negotiate with the President and get a back room deal that they would not veto an item. If he pushes for such things, he would be showing that he is an authoritarian and not about democracy in my view.

It is a bad concept, it is coming up because many people know they have to get a totalitarian system in place quick if they are going to do it.

It is part of many other stories out their in the news, they are trying to get a totalitarian system in place, and Executive power like that is part of it.

It is not part of checks and balances.


The line item veto is in congress where it should be, in the voting on amendments.

:shrug:

Like I said, the bad side will spiral down, it is all it can do, so such news articles are not a surprise, just not part of representative democracy, but part of Oligarchy and Dictatorship.

[karynnj]

4. No it wouldn't

The provision that Kerry spoke of as being new is what prevents that.

The entire list has to be approved by Congress - of they are not deleted.

Therefore in practice, the only list that could be approved for deletion is one where more than a majority of senators (and I think the number in 2004 was the equivalent of a veto - ie 67 in the Senate)

Anything that specifies who gets the funding is an earmark. There are many that can be very easily defended to anyone - and others that are clearly boondoogles for important Senators. There are many in between. This is better than the ad hoc legislation to "eliminate all earmarks". What those bills do is leave all the granting of money to the executive branch - which then picks and chooses the recipients of the money in the legislation.

[Catherina]

2. And the answer is still NO n/t