Line-item cuts

Spending by the federal government has become a topic of concern across the political spectrum. On top of massive appropriations for projects and programs considered by some to be pork and by others to be absolute necessities, the government faces the costs of the war on terrorism and storm-related assistance in the wake of two major hurricanes in Gulf Coast states.

President Bush says he needs the power of the line-item veto to effectively control federal spending. With a line-item veto, the president could trim some spending items in appropriations bills without having to veto the entire bill. Governors in 43 states, including Missouri, already have this authority.

Many taxpayers would argue that runaway spending falls on the shoulders of U.S. representatives and senators who, using the political process, lavish funding on pet projects for their constituents. Others worry that giving the president the power of line-item vetoes would increase his political control over spending decisions by allowing him to reward or punish elected legislators based on their support on key policy matters.

Congress adopted a line-item veto in 1996 as part of the Republican-led Contract With America. President Clinton used the line-item veto 82 times in 1997 before the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down on the basis that it gave the president unconstitutional authority to undo the will of Congress.

U.S. Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri has proposed a constitutional amendment granting the president not only the line-item veto, but also the power to cut line-item spending, a power granted to only 12 state governors.

The fact that nearly every state governor has line-item veto powers is a strong argument that a presidential line-item veto would be an effective tool for controlling spending. But along with that power should come a renewed sense of fiscal responsibility on the part of congressional legislators who tend to abuse appropriations bills while claiming to favor tax cuts and spending restraint.