FREE ESSAY ON LINE ITEM VETO

LINE ITEM VETO

When the House passed the Line Item Veto legislation, in a strong bipartisan vote of
294-134, it
took great 
strides toward assuring the American people that the purpose of government is to serve
the needs of
all 
Americans. It also indicated its intention to seriously address the budgetary problems
created by
forty years of 
elitist pork barrel arrogance by the majority party in Congress. Congressional approval
will also take
away a 
sinister political weapon, designed to distort the images presented to the people.
Without the Line
Item Veto the 
President was forced to either accept or reject any legislative proposal as it was
written. Congress
learned the 
trick of tacking on extra money for special projects, ones that usually helped fellow
Representatives
or Senators 
get reelected. In more blatant times they have actually increased Congressional salaries.
In the article
one 
example is cited by Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. Added to a bill to provide
California !
earthquake relief 
last year was $10 Million for a train station in New York and funds for sugar cane
growers in
Hawaii. The 
public is seldom aware of this "extra" spending. Without the Line Item Veto the President
must either
sign or 
veto the bill with the pork attached. This ploy thus becomes a political weapon. If the
President
vetoes it his 
opponents can accuse him of not wanting to help Americans in need. U.S. Presidents since
Ulysses
S. Grant 
have all called for the Line Item Veto. In the article the new Speaker of The House was
quoted as
saying 
"President after president has said it was something that would be good for America
because it
would allow the 
president to cut out some of the worst in spending." Opposition to the Line Item Veto
argues it
would tip the 
balance of power too heavily toward the White House. Another point postulated by those
concerned suggest 
the President could use this power to favor one politician over another by selective use
in lining out
budget 
busting features of a given piece of legislation. This action, I feel, would stir such
wrath of the
American voter, no 
President would be willing to risk it. On the other hand, a weak president could use the
Line Item
Veto to cut 
spending and gain favor with the voters. Without the Line Item Veto the American taxpayer
will be
subject to a 
Congress more concerned with reelection than in serving the needs of the country. It is
currently a
system rife 
with corruption. The problem, as I perceive it, and I must admit there was no hint of it
in the article I
read in the 
Southern Illinoisan, is the nature of humanity. I contend human nature is such that is
impossible to
have that many 
people that close to power and in control of that much money for that long a period of
time without
having some 
form of corruption. All the values that make up the culture of America are at stake here
and the
camps of special 
interest on the subject break down to two: the American people and elected officials. The
founding
fathers 
would be repulsed that an issue like this would even be necessary. I'm certain they never
envisioned
a Congress 
with such a leaning toward their own special interest. Solutions are simple, pass the
Line Item Veto
or allow the 
current system to assist in driving the country into bankruptcy. Obviously the first
solution is the one
preferred 
and, with the recent turnover in Congress, we are going in that direction. Representative
Bill Baker
of California 
was quoted as saying, "This week, we're going to give the president, whoever the
president is, the
tools to help 
balance the budget."