A 

Abortion
Accounting
Advertising
Africa
African-American Studies
Aging
Agriculture
American Indian Studies
Anthropology
Archaeology
Architecture
Argumentative
Art: Artists (Alphabetized)
Art: General
Become an Affiliate and Earn $$$
Biographies (Alphabetized)
Book Reviews (Non-Fiction) (Alphabetized)
Business: Companies (Alphabetized)
Business: General
Business: Industries (Alphabetized)
Business: International
Business: Small
California
Canada
Caribbean
Child Abuse
China
Communication: Journalism
Communication: Language & Speech
Communication: Media
Communication: Non-Verbal
Communication: Television
Communication: Television & Children
Communism
Computer Science
Consumerism
Criminal Justice: General
Criminal Justice: Juvenile Delinquency
Criminal Justice: Police Science
Criminal Justice: Prisons
Cuba
Death & Dying: Euthanasia
Death & Dying: General
Death & Dying: Suicide
Drama: American
Drama: English
Drama: World
Drugs: Alcohol
Drugs: General
Economics: Banking
Economics: Economists (Alphabetized)
Economics: General
Economics: Inflation
Economics: International Trade
Economics: Macroeconomics
Economics: Microeconomics
Economics: Taxation
Education: Administration
Education: Curriculum
Education: General
Education: Higher
Education: Physical
Education: Psychology
Education: Reading
Education: Special
Education: Teaching Methods
Education: Theory
Energy: General
Energy: Nuclear
Energy: Solar
Environmental Studies
Evolution
Family & Marriage
Films: Artists (Alphabetized)
Films: General
Finance: Companies (Alphabetized)
Finance: General
Former Soviet Union: Post-1990
France
Gender & Sexuality
Geography
Germany
History: Ancient Greek & Roman
History: European
History: Great Britain
History: U.S. (After 1865)
History: U.S. (Before 1865)
History: U.S. Presidency
History: U.S. Presidents (Alphabetized)
Homosexuality
Immigration
India
Indonesia
International Relations: Arms Control
International Relations: Cold War
International Relations: Non-U.S.
International Relations: U.S.
Japan
Jewish Studies
Korea
Labor
Latin America
Law: Business
Law: Capital Punishment
Law: General
Law: International & Non-U.S.
Law: Supreme Court
Leadership
Literature, American: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, American: Faulkner
Literature, American: Fitzgerald
Literature, American: General
Literature, American: Hawthorne
Literature, American: Hemingway
Literature, American: Melville
Literature, American: Poe
Literature, American: Steinbeck
Literature, American: Twain
Literature, English: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, English: Chaucer
Literature, English: Conrad
Literature, English: Dickens
Literature, English: General
Literature, English: Joyce
Literature, English: Lawrence
Literature, English: Shakespeare
Literature, English: Swift
Literature, General: Children
Literature, General: Classic (Greek & Roman)
Literature, General: Russian
Literature, General: World
Management: General
Management: Japanese
Management: Motivation
Management: Theory
Management: Women
Marketing: Companies (Alphabetized)
Marketing: General
Marketing: Plans
Mathematics
Medical: Aids
Medical: Dentistry
Medical: Diseases & Disorders (Alphabetized)
Medical: General
Medical: Nursing
Mexican-American Studies
Mexico
Middle East: Egypt
Middle East: General
Middle East: O.P.E.C.
Military
Music: Classical
Music: General
Mythology
Nutrition
Parapsychology/Occult
Philosophy: Ancient Greek
Philosophy: Descartes
Philosophy: Eastern
Philosophy: General
Philosophy: Kant
Philosophy: Sartre
Poetry: American
Poetry: English
Poetry: Milton
Poetry: World
Political Science: Elections & Campaigns
Political Science: Foreign
Political Science: Lobbyists & Pressure Groups
Political Science: Machiavelli
Political Science: Mill
Political Science: Political Theory
Political Science: U.S.
Psychology: Behaviorism
Psychology: Child & Adolescent
Psychology: Disorders
Psychology: Dreams
Psychology: Experimental
Psychology: Freud
Psychology: General
Psychology: Jung
Psychology: Physiology
Psychology: Piaget
Psychology: Rogers
Psychology: Social
Psychology: Testing
Psychology: Therapies
Public Administration: General
Public Administration: Government Agencies (Alphabetized)
Racism
Real Estate
Recreation & Leisure
Religion: Eastern
Religion: General
Religion: Islam
Religion: The Bible
Research: Completed Studies (With Statistics & Results)
Research: Designs & Proposals
Research: Statistics & Methodology
Russia: Pre-1917 Revolution
Science: Astronomy
Science: Biology
Science: General
Science: Genetics
Sociology: Durkheim
Sociology: General
Sociology: Marx
Sociology: Social Problems
Sociology: Social Theory
Sociology: Social Welfare
Sociology: Weber
Soviet Union: 1917-1990
Sports: Drugs
Sports: General
Technology
Transportation: Automotive
Transportation: Aviation
Transportation: General
Transportation: Railroads
Urban Studies
Vietnam
Women Studies
 

LINE-ITEM VETO.   Term Paper ID:19231 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines proposed aims of presidential line-item veto & argues against its application.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 7 sources, 7 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines proposed aims of presidential line-item veto & argues against its application. Paper Introduction: It has been frequently argued -- particularly by recent Presidents, their spokespersons, and their supporters, that the President should be granted a so-called line-item veto in order to strengthen his hand in controlling federal spending. However, as we shall see, there is essentially no evidence to show that a line-item veto would have the desired effect, and several strong reasons for believing that a line-item veto would have virtually no effect on Federal spending levels. Under the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, the President has the power to veto bills sent to him by Congress, returning the bill with a message stating why he vetoed it. The bill can then be enacted into law only by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. (There is another form of veto, the so-called "pocket veto" in which a President simply refuses to act on a Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. In contrast, most state constitutions givegovernors the power to veto individual portions of bills, while permittingthe rest to become law ("The Line-Item Veto," Nation's Business, 199 ).This power has come to be called a "line-item veto" because of itsapplication to spending bills: each "line-item" in a budget refers to aspecific appropriation, so that the executive (a governor, or in the viewof proponents of a Federal line-item veto, the President) can veto thatparticular appropriation while passing the rest of the budget into law("Line-Item Veto," Congressional Digest, 199 ). It would never know which parts would be accepted,and which parts would be vetoed. They are both extremely reluctant to raise taxes,and like to cut them if at all possible. (199 , June). U.S. NewYork: Perigee. Constitution for everyone. First, even if itcould in fact control spending, it would tend to unbalance ourconstitutional system of government, and would probably lead to more ratherthan less political gridlock in Washington. Finally, a third argument is that thereis little evidence that Presidents would actually act to hold down federalspending, even if the line-item veto were available to them. Gerberg, Mort. ----. (1991, August 26). President Reagan, for example,did substantially cut social spending from the levels of the Carter years.However, this cut was balanced by increases in military spending. Thus, while a line-item veto might help the (Republican) Presidentto direct Federal spending more to the programs he favors, and less tothose that (a Democratic) Congress favors, the spending and deficitexperience of the Reagan-Bush era suggests strongly that it would not serveto "control Federal spending" in the sense of holding that spending down. P. But the record of recent Presidents (of both parties) is that theiractual spending targets are at least as high as those of Congress.President Reagan entered office claiming that he would cut both spendingand taxes. Forexample, an amendment providing funding for a local pork-barrel highwayproject in some congressional district -- might be attached to a defense orforeign-aid appropriation bill. Ifthe President had a line-item veto, Congress could no longer safely sendhim such package bills. Line-item veto. 16-18). Congress sometimes attaches such unrelated riders, requiring someexpenditure, onto a "must pass" bill -- the main appropriation for theDefense Department, for example, or a measure to raise the legal ceiling onthe national debt. The principal argument in favor of a line-item veto is that it wouldpermit the President to remove so-called "pork barrel" items -- measuresthat benefit mainly individual Congressional districts, and therefore arebeneficial to individual members of Congress, but are not relevant tonational needs (Buckley, 1991). Thedifferences between Presidents and Congress have been in the focus ofspending, rather than in the amount spent. Alternatively, every individualitem which a majority of Congress wished to enact would have to be passedas a separate bill. Why, argue line-item veto proponents, shouldthe President be held hostage, when such a bill reaches his desk, to anunrelated rider attached to it, a rider that may lead to unnecessaryFederal spending. The U.S. ----. It has been frequently argued -- particularly by recent Presidents,their spokespersons, and their supporters, that the President should begranted a so-called line-item veto in order to strengthen his hand incontrolling federal spending. This argument is mirrored by journalists whofavor their views, e.g., Buckley (1991) and an article in Nation's Business("The Line-Item Veto," 199 ). Today, the Congress can pass broad bills as asingle measure, for the President to take or leave as a whole. Thus, while they would divide the pie in differentways, the size of the budgetary pie they call for tends to be nearly thesame. In the course of theReagan era, for example, the budgets submitted by the President differedonly slightly in spending levels from the budgets passed by Congress. The bill can then be enacted into lawonly by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. The bill then "dies" at the end of the Congressional session. 164-92. When a President hasprotested a line-item in a bill, but signed the bill anyway, it hasgenerally been an indication that he did not really feel all that stronglyabout the line-item to which he objected. Presidentshave not hesitated to threaten vetoes of even critical bills, if thesecontained line-items to which they strongly accepted. If thePresident dislikes one line-item enough, he can veto the whole measure. Most recent Presidents have been Republicans, and"controlling Federal spending" is a long-standing point of doctrine amongthe Republican faithful. When a President does veto a bill, moreover, the veto has generallybeen sustained. Several times in theReagan-Bush era, indeed, the government has been more-or-less "shut down"by a President's refusal to sign critical budget bills of which hedisapproved. Congressional Digest, 69,pp. Finally, the third argument against the line-item veto questionswhether greater Presidential authority over Federal government spending,would, in fact, help significantly to control Federal spending. Failure to enact such a measure into law might throwthe government into chaos. Reportage on pendingbill to reverse limits on abortion counselling. Thus, Republican Presidents appeal to theirpolitical base by declaring that -- if only they had more power -- theywould hold down spending. Second, there is littleevidence that Presidents, under the present system, are really "heldhostage" by Congressional "riders" and other unwanted budgetary line-items. The modern Presidency is, in fact, animmensely powerful office, and its power has steadily increased over theyears. Dutton.----------------------- 6 The second argument is that, in fact, Presidents are seldom ifever "held hostage" by riders or other unwanted spending measures incritical bills, so that the absence of a line-item veto does not have theill effects it is alleged to have. The firstargument holds that a line-item veto would give the President too muchpower with respect to Congress. In summary, there are three strong reasons to cast doubt on the valueof a line-item veto in controlling Federal spending. Both Presidents and the Congress are under essentially the samebudgetary constraints. Let us now consider these three arguments in detail. Bush's veto strategy. 54-55. (1989). For example,President Bush in effect held Congress "hostage" by committing U.S. PresidentBush, indeed, has followed a "veto strategy" throughout his term ("Bush'sVeto Strategy", 199 ). (199 , June-July). (199 , July 2). Third and finally, there is no evidence that modern Presidents, if theyhad greater budgetary power, would use it to actually cut total spending,rather than merely deflecting it to their preferred programs andpriorities. SeeGerberg, 1987, pp. forcesto war in the Persian Gulf without ever seeking Congressionalauthorization. References Buckley, William F. This record of Presidential vetoes, even ofcritical bills, suggests that when a President feels strongly enough aboutsome line-item in a bill, he does not hesitate to veto the entire bill inorder to force Congress to remove that line-item. News and WorldReport, 1 9, pp. However, as we shall see, there isessentially no evidence to show that a line-item veto would have thedesired effect, and several strong reasons for believing that a line-itemveto would have virtually no effect on Federal spending levels. They both want to spend as muchas they can on those programs which they prefer, but are limited by thesize of the deficit. Since the President alreadyhas so much power to have his own way, should the Constitution be changedto give him even more? The line-item veto: A logical starting pointfor fiscal reform. As this is written (November 6, 1991) Cable NewsNetwork reports that President Bush has, so far, had a unbroken record ofsuccess in his vetoes to date. Congress might have to hold divisiveoverride votes on each vetoed lineitem. (1991, November 6). Apart from the philosophical argument over the power of the branchesof government, the actual effect of a line-item veto might be to vastlyincrease Congress' workload, producing even more opportunities forparalysis of government. However, the Constitution, as generally interpreted, gives thePresident the power only to veto bills in their entirety. ----. President Reagan won most of his veto fights. Schieffer, Bob; and Gary Paul Gates. (There is anotherform of veto, the so-called "pocket veto" in which a President simplyrefuses to act on a bill sent to him in the final days of a Congressionalterm. The acting president.New York: E. Under the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, the President has thepower to veto bills sent to him by Congress, returning the bill with amessage stating why he vetoed it. In either case, a legislative logjam would result. In particular, a line-item veto,supporters argue, would prevent the Congress from attaching unwanted"riders" onto important bills. 18-2 . He did cut taxes, but made no serious effort to cut spending,with the result that the deficit grew vastly during his term in office.(Indeed, this was predicted by his own budget director, early in his firstterm; see (Schiefffer and Gates, 1989, pp. (1987). There are three possible arguments to be made against the line-itemveto. ----. 96, 142). The first argument is that it upsets the balance of power, allowingthe President to pick and choose too much in the bills that Congress sendsto him. A "rider" is an amendment to a bill, onewhich may have nothing at all to do with the main subject of the bill. The language ofthe Constitution does not specify this, but it says nothing about portionsof bills, and it has always been interpreted as giving the President vetopower only over entire bills. The second argument against the line-item veto is that, in fact,Presidents are seldom held hostage by riders they don't want. Congress was virtually forced to give him the war powers hedemanded -- to do otherwise would either have triggered a Constitutionalcrisis (if President Bush defied Congress and went to war anyway) or elsehave left the President unable, at the eleventh hour, to follow through oninternational commitments he had already made. 79. Cable news network. Pork and the line-item veto.National Review, 43, pp. Tounderstand this argument, it is important to distinguish between rhetoricand reality. Instead of Congress holding the President hostage over an unwantedrider or line-item, it is often the other way around. Nation's Business, 78, p. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.