THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, April 3, 1996 TAG: 9604030015
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 94 lines
The line-item veto being handed the president by the Congress is part of the Republican Revolution, but it's far from certain that its impact will be revolutionary.
The idea is that presidents should have the authority to kill parts of a budget bill - or line items - without having to veto the whole thing. This makes sense because, as the Republicans argue, Congress has been demonstrably unable to keep its fiscal house in order, and presidents have been hamstrung from doing much about it.
But both the fine print in the law headed for President Clinton's desk and practical politics dictate that the new veto power may be used less often than its admirers hope or its detractors fear.
For instance, budget-busting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare will be exempt from the veto, as will tax breaks affecting more than 100 people. And while presidents will doubtless apply the ax to some pork-barrel projects, even those cuts may be tempered by unwillingness to stir up resentment in the hinterlands.
While 43 states, including Virginia, give their governors line-item veto power, the infrequency with which the right is used is instructive. Since 1940, only three Virginia governors have seen fit to meddle with the legislature's budget handiwork.
Gov. James Price, 1940-44, applied the veto nine times during a legislative budget battle rooted in his independence from the Byrd Organization. The General Assembly sued the governor over those vetoes, and the state Supreme Court upheld their lawsuit on six items.
The veto was not used again until 1976 when Gov. Mills Godwin nixed a $10 million appropriation for the Metro transit system in Northern Virginia. Regional lawmakers took the matter to the Supreme Court, which upheld Godwin.
Most recently, Gov. Douglas Wilder - who had complained loudly about the legislative budget process - vetoed five items in the 1991 appropriations act. However, the cuts reduced a $26 billion budget only by about $800,000. The most notable veto cut funding for a pet project of a political rival, former Senate Finance Chairman Hunter Andrews, and appeared to have more to do with politics than philosophy.
Richmond is not Washington. Among the distinctions is the fact that state budgets have to balance by law. That means the documents reaching the desks of Virginia's chief executives are less out of kilter, and less inviting of vetoes, than those directed to the White House.
But it is the law, not the line-item veto, that keeps Virginia's books in balance. Therein, lies a lesson for Washington.
The line-item veto being handed the president by the Congress is part of the Republican Revolution, but it's far from certain that its impact will be revolutionary.
The idea is that presidents should have the authority to kill parts of a budget bill - or line items - without having to veto the whole thing. This makes sense because, as the Republicans argue, Congress has been demonstrably unable to keep the federal government's fiscal house in order, and presidents have been hamstrung from doing much about it.
But both the fine print in the law headed for President Clinton's desk and practical politics dictate that the new veto power may be used less often than its admirers hope or its detractors fear.
For instance, budget-busting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare will be exempt from the veto, as will tax breaks affecting more than 100 people. And while presidents will doubtless apply the ax to some pork-barrel projects, even those cuts may be tempered by unwillingness to stir up resentment in the hinterlands.
While 43 states, including Virginia, give their governors line-item veto power, the infrequency with which the right is used is instructive. Since 1940, only three Virginia governors have seen fit to meddle with the legislature's budget handiwork.
Gov. James Price, 1940-44, applied the veto nine times during a legislative budget battle rooted in his independence from the Byrd Organization. The General Assembly sued the governor over those vetoes, and the state Supreme Court upheld their lawsuit on six items.
The veto was not used again until 1976 when Gov. Mills Godwin nixed a $10 million appropriation for the Metro transit system in Northern Virginia. Regional lawmakers took the matter to the Supreme Court, which upheld Godwin.
Most recently, Gov. Douglas Wilder - who had complained loudly about the legislative budget process - vetoed five items in the 1991 appropriations act. However, the cuts reduced a $26 billion budget only by about $800,000. The most notable veto cut funding for a pet project of a political rival, former Senate Finance Chairman Hunter Andrews, and appeared to have more to do with politics than philosophy.
Richmond is not Washington. Among the distinctions is the fact that state budgets have to balance by law. That means the documents reaching the desks of Virginia's chief executives are less out of kilter, and less inviting of vetoes, than those directed to the White House.
But it is the law, not the line-item veto, that keeps Virginia's books in balance. Therein, lies a lesson for Washington. by CNB