IF BILL CLINTON and Newt Gingrich and the vast majority of Americans agree about something labelled government reform, it must make sense, right? We don't think so when the "reform" in question is the line item veto -- the proposal to give the president the power to strike out one portion of a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure. The purpose? To bring down the federal deficit by allowing the president to eliminate budget items he considers frivolous and unnecessary.
Much is made in the congressional debate about what the line item veto would mean for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. Opponents on both sides of the partisan aisle insist it would give too much control over the federal pocketbook to the president, when the Founders left no doubt that Congress, particularly the House of Representatives elected every two years, should control the purse.
Supporters counter that the branches were knocked off balance in the 1970s when a Democratic Congress passed the Budget and Impoundment Act in a deliberate move to strip Richard Nixon of the trappings of what they called his "imperial presidency." And, they add, the version of the veto outlined in the Republican "Contract with America" gives Congress the final, though politically and procedurally difficult, say on spending.
We think it's pretty clear that the line item veto would shift power down Pennsylvania Avenue from Capitol Hill to the White House, that's why executives -- presidents and governors of both parties -- like it. Taking some of the purse strings out of the hands of the "body closest to the people" might not be so bad if it resulted in a real erasure of red ink. But it won't. A swipe at a highway here, a dam there, even a space station or a super-collider won't make a significant dent in the deficit.
In fact, a president could "line item" the entire space program, the entire highway program, all agricultural subsidies, all education subsidies, eliminate every item in what's called the discretionary budget including the entire United States Congress and its staff, all the federal courts and prisons, wipe out everything the government pays for except Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the national debt and there would still be a budget deficit. But in the legislation before Congress, the president would be unable to line item veto anything in four of those big five programs.
Only defense spending would be subject to the pen. The so-called "entitlements," which include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, could not be touched. And, much as they might wish they could, no president can draw a line crossing out interest on the national debt, one of the biggest slices out of the federal pie.
But, advocates argue, if the president could get rid of something silly like the Lawrence Welk Birthplace, taxpayers might feel better about sending off their money. (This is not an argument conservatives like to hear.) And what's the harm in it? After all, 43 governors have line item veto power, and their states seem to be getting along fine. Anyone who truly understands the workings of this federal system knows the answer to that question: plenty.
Congress must perform a task no single state legislature faces -- it must balance the vastly different interests of Americans. That means finding a point of agreement between such states as Louisiana where oil is produced, and such states as Massachusetts where large quantities of oil are consumed; between states that thrive off the export trade and those hard hit by imports.
In short it must "come together," that's the actual meaning of the word "Congress." It's a tedious, painstaking, often ludicrous process, but it's essential. Suppose at the end of the whole debate, after all the peas were carefully placed on the knife, someone who had not been part of the process had the opportunity to knock one or two off? What would be the incentive for ever completing anything? How could members of Congress know whether they had succeeded in representing their districts, as their jobs require?
And think of the political mischief! A president wants to punish a state that did not support him in the last election? Easy, just line item out programs of benefit to Kansas, for example. A president eager to please his friends and punish his enemies could happily use the veto and never lose anything.
As it stands now, presidents often swallow something they don't like in order to get something else they like in legislation. It means they have to share power, that they can't control spending single-handedly. That's just fine with us.
Cokie Roberts is a commentator for ABC News. Steven Roberts is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report.