Even more on line-item hokum
By Jonathan Bernstein
Over at Capitol Gaines and Games, Pete Davis has an excellent post giving reasons why the line-item veto proposal is a bad idea (see also Stan Collender's post). Not only is he more concise than I am, but his list includes one reason I missed yesterday. As Davis says, enhanced rescission "[w]ould substitute White House pork for congressional pork -- [u]nless you have worked in the right places in Washington, you rarely see how much White House pork moves into bills before Congress."
Good point! Granted, unlike most people in this discussion I'm not really against pork of either the presidential or congressional variety, but presumably those who support this scheme do oppose pork.
As Davis says, "Bottom line: On deficit reduction, you can't legislate political backbone." You can, however, weaken Congress and centralize power in the White House, and that's what this is really about. Well, that, and the illusion of action. If that's all the president wants (and with unemployment high, I think there's a strong case to be made for it), then he should stick to toothless commissions.
Posted by: jduptonma | May 26, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Kevin_Willis | May 26, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Patrick_M | May 27, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.