7/16/98

One of the ongoing debates in Washington involves the question of whether or not to give the President line-item veto power over budget matters. Together with the debate on the need for a balanced budget, many elected officials from both sides of the aisle have sparred over this question because it deals with the concept of separation of powers. Through bipartisan efforts the use of a line-item veto became law some eighteen months ago. It did not take long to get the law into the court system, however, where it was eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, they ruled it was unconstitutional! I'm sure we have not heard the last of it.

Exactly what is the line-item veto and why is it needed? A brief review. After both legislative bodies pass a bill, it is sent to the President (or Governor) for their signature, veto, etc. However, under the line-item veto concept, they can strike certain portions of the law without killing the entire bill. This was applied only to budget bills in Congress. The Courts said this violated the separation of the branches of government section of the Constitution. However, we have had this mechanism in Georgia for decades. The theory behind the concept is to help prevent excessive or non-germane language from becoming part of the law. Or to state it in the negative, to save the good parts of an otherwise bad bill. This process acts as a check on someone who is trying to kill an otherwise good bill by loading it up with bad language. It also acts as a check on a President who may want to kill an entire bill but, with this option, knows he/she cannot justify doing so.

Our constitutional-republic was set up based on the concept of checks and balances. The Senate has the power to refuse the appointment of an ambassador, for instance. Yet the Courts ruled that this was an unauthorized invasion by the Executive Branch into the affairs of the Legislative Branch. If so, then many other ideas enunciated in the Constitution need to be revisited also.

As I mentioned, we have had this veto in Georgia for years. It has served us well because it tends to act as a hammer over the legislature without losing the entire law. By the way, we have a balance budget here in Georgia and have for decades. You could argue that these go hand in hand. Our economy is the Southeast leader and we have the fifth lowest tax rate in the country. All of these are intertwined. They all act as checks and balances.

Why would some people be against this you may ask? Because some politicians are more interested in protecting their "turf" instead of setting good public policy. They are more concerned with fighting against something instead of fighting for something. Because it ultimately involves the question of who will be in charge. I am afraid that we are getting more and more people elected to office who think like the former instead of the latter. This is one debate where that manifests itself. What can we do as voters? We can require candidates to take positions on these issues and then determine whether they deserve our vote.

Why do I bring this up only a few short days before the primary election? Because in this age of sound bites and politics being a no-contact encounter like in the old days, one must pay close attention to what the candidates say to separate the wheat from the chafe. Good luck.