THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 14, 1996 TAG: 9604120006
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: Perry Morgan
LENGTH: Medium: 81 lines
The Republican Party has been needing for some time to have its head examined. But, alas, it is too late. The party that preaches states' rights and condemns concentration of power in Washington has handed over to the executive a big chunk of the most fundamental power of the Congress - control of the purse. That, in any case, is the party's claim.
Under the line-item veto, signed into law last week, the president will have the power to strike out specific parts of spending bills and some tax measures without vetoing the entire legislation. The idea has long been part of Republican doctrine and, on its face, has great appeal. It does offer a way to have pork-barrel spending and special tax breaks pruned from bills after supine legislators have got credit for putting them in.
The appeal of the veto has grown in tandem with awareness of the enormous power of special interests to exact special favors from Congress. Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., a leading proponent of the veto, blamed congressional ``inability to get a handle on spending and curb the insatiable appetite of those who want to use the spending process for their favorite projects.'' He said Congress had voluntarily parted with a power that it has abused.
If this explains abdication by Congress, it does not justify it. First off, a radical remedy does not promise all that much relief from logrolling. Two-thirds of federal spending, most of it for Medicare and other entitlement programs, will be exempt from the veto. Secondly, the remedy goes to the symptoms rather than the roots of the problem.
Ask, for example, what adoption of the veto says to a corporation seeking a tax break or a Congressman Claghorn seeking a few million annually to fund a Museum of Mason Jars and Patchwork Quilts.
It doesn't say that the favors can't be granted but only that the favor-seeker must look to pleasing the president rather than the Congress. It doesn't say that pressure for favors will be decreased, and it doesn't lessen the leverage or the amount of money chasing advantage.
Supporters of the veto must assume a virtuous president - one more immune than they to partisan itch and the urges of power. Perhaps, as well, they assume that giving the power to check waste to one person will exert discipline by concentrating accountability and by providing a bull's-eye for public opinion.
There's something to be said for that and, perhaps, for optimism that the change will work out for the best. But optimism fades when one remembers obsessive use of presidential power by Lyndon Johnson who once told a joint session he was confident that Congress would pass ``my law.'' There likely will be another LBJ and another Richard Nixon, chief executives who relished power and weren't the least bit squeamish in twisting it to their purposes.
We think erroneously of the line-item veto as a power with the limited use of controlling waste: Actually, like any other, it's a power that can be used to reward or punish, tempt or persuade, in order to advance a presidential agenda. Now, to be sure, the power has been transferred by statute and, if it's abused, Congress can nullify it by majority vote if, that is, it can muster a two-thirds vote to override a traditional vote.
It would be silly to assume that a president willingly would hand back to the Congress what it decided to convey to him. Such gifts are rare, very useful and beyond price. As Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, points out, the appetite of presidents for pork is larger ``because they have more mouths to feed, a point exemplified by President Clinton's concern for the entire state of California.''
``In the hands of a vindictive president, the line-item veto could be absolutely brutal,'' said Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
``The one thing we should not do is elect a vindictive president,'' replied Bob Dole who, in younger years, was a tooth-and-claw defender in Richard Nixon of just such a president.
The Supreme Court has a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents. Perhaps the court will tell the Congress the power involved in a real line-item veto can be transferred only by amending the Constitution. Perhaps, though, the court will only shrug - finding in the fine print of the bill being ballyhooed so many escape hatches that the legislation appears more a matter of hype than substance. A certain amount of skepticism is in order when Bill Clinton and the Republicans congratulate each other on striking a blow for thrift through power-sharing. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB