The Balanced Budget Veto Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution put forth in a paper by Anthony Hawks published by the libertarian Cato Institute, with the intention of establishing a self-enforcing mechanism to reduce deficit spending.
The amendment gives the President line-item veto authority over spending for one year, if the prior year's budget is unbalanced.
Such an amendment would permit the President to make necessary spending cuts while providing Congress with an incentive to balance the federal budget by Themselves.
(Additional details may be found at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1346
Comments (7)
We've got far too much of a deficit already. The only way to responsibly deal with this is by cutting programs that contribute to the deficit and by finding equal funding to cut when a new program will add to the deficit or even cause one.
A constitutional amendment isn't necessary. The Senate and House should just change its internal rules (which are not subject to Judicial or Executive oversight) to automatically enroll large spending bills into miniature billettes
For example, a 1000 page spending bill could be divided up into 2,000 billettes, each a self contained spending law, which could be presented to the president.
The president wouldn't have to sign each individual billette, since it will become a law if it is not signed within 10 days and Congress is still in session.
The President already has the line by line veto power and President Obama promised during his campaign to go through Bills line by line to cut wasteful spending and also cut government program that are not working instead over 200 new government programs were created and President Obama did not use the line his line veto power in the Stimulus Bill or Omnibus Bill like he promised. President Obama told Americans in a Town Hall Meeting in Fort Meyers, FL there were NO ear marks in the Stimulus Bill when in fact there were thousands. Eliminating the outrageous, irresponsible ear marks in the Stimulus Bill and Omnibus Bill would have been the best time to demonstrate your promise of line by line veto to the American people. The American people want and expect you to keep your promises President Obama. NO MORE EAR MARKS OR PORK BARREL SPENDING!!
@sallietoo:
Last time I checked, the President does NOT have line-item veto power. Sure, there have been numerous proposed bills, some that have passed either the House or Senate, but none that have been passed into law or that have not been ruled unconstitutional. In fact, my proposal is very similar to John McCain's bill S. 2443 which would have required separate enrollment.
The constitution is VERY clear about how a bill becomes law: It must be passed by a majority of the House and Senate, and then presented to the President for signature, pocket veto, or pocket signature. The President MUST either veto the entire bill or pass the entire bill. If the President tries to "line item veto" by crossing out a section of the bill and then returns it to Congress, the entire bill has been vetoed and is NOT law until the Congress passes the bill again, and then presents it again to the President for signature. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), which found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1995 was unconstitutional.
This isn't a partisan issue. This is about Separation of Powers. Giving the President legislative powers is a big deal. I think that the President should have the veto power, but that it should be limited so that he can not abuse it. Similarly, Congress should be limited in how it can pass spending bills. I believe a constitutional amendment is too drastic. An internal rule, (like the filibusterer, but separately enrolling bills by headings), would be more effective and easier to implement than a constitutional amendment.
Not allowing the President to have imperial powers is an idea that both Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals (and other patriots) can agree on.
Problem with this Idea is it is open to abuse by the President. For example: The President could line-item veto lines that are for military spending in lieu of spending for Welfare.
@photosrme: According to the text of the proposed amendment, any spending portion the President vetoes would be subject to the same potential veto override by Congress as in the current situation involving all bills currently sent to His desk. If the President vetoed military spending, Congress could restore such spending with a 2/3 vote of both Houses.
@paultstone: Your concern of "far too much of a deficit" underscores the very usefulness of this proposed amendment. If the deficit becomes too large, the impetus falls to the President to lead the country back to fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, Congress can regain the proverbial "power of the purse" by rebalancing the budget Themselves, thereby removing the Presidents line-item authority. Your comment is one definitely worth listening too, especially if the amendment passes.