Last night on Greta Van Susteren’s TV show ‘On The Record’ she hosted a segment with Republican Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan and the senior Democrat Chris Van Hollen – A Bipartisan Attempt To Budget Reform.

Essentially the cliff notes version: Ryan and Van Hollen are introducing new version of a bill for the presidential line item veto.   The plan is provide a tool in the line item veto so a president can strike individual ‘Spending Earmarks’ from legislation and thereby stop pork or pet projects attached by individual members of the House or Senate.
A former version was tried before but struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because it provided too much power to the Executive branch of government (diminished separation of powers) and all spending must, by constitutional requirement, stem from the House of Representatives.  The President cannot just sit at his desk and arbitrarily determine approvals of what gets spent where.

Consequently all earmarks tucked into legislation end up being approved because the primary intended legislation held the president’s approval and he cannot veto an earmark without vetoing the entire bill.    Hence ridiculous pet project earmarks make it into legislation and spending on unnecessary or unimportant projects end up being funded.
So Ryan and Van Holland have a new version of the Line Item Veto that provides the same Presidential authority, however this version also requires the vetoed item to be immediately returned to the House for a stand alone up or down vote.   This return and stand alone part is what makes their new bill constitutional.  Or at least they think it does.
So the president, any president, would be able to strike out portions of spending bills that they do not approve, and those portions would be sent back to the House for another vote under a special rule that requires it to be immediate action.  Hence their position that ‘Earmarks’ unable to stand on their own merit would never be attached to legislation.  It would also be embarrassing for the member who proposed the spending, and therefore spending would be reduced as reps would be less likely to request earmarks or pork spending.  It would also stop the process of buying votes like the Cornhusker Kickback from the Healthcare Bill as only one example.
Sounds good right?   Pork is bad, earmarks are bad, spending on unnecessary stuff is bad, buying votes is bad, so the whole concept sounds good.   I thought so to, until I thought about it a little differently.
This new spending approval power in the hands of the President “could” be used as a lever of influence on individual members and even BEYOND.   Think about it this way.   What if I were president and you had a spending bill attachment that meant a lot to your district or state.  I could use your need as leverage to get you to support something you might not otherwise support.   What if I told you your spending proposal was contingent upon you supporting my party changes to a Healthcare bill.   Quid Pro Quo?   Or…..
What if you represented a district in a state with a Republican Governor, Say, New Jersey;  and your Governor just went on TV and attacked me for not doing my job.   Now I’m angry at him and I want to retaliate, and along comes your spending proposal.   Hmmmm?   See where this could head?    Your state perhaps really needs the jobs that go along with the spending proposal.  But I can stop it now.
Do you think perhaps your Governor would be thinking about that before he took a position against me?     Sure could be a great way to silence critics huh?
Now, you might say well even if I veto it the spending earmark will immediately return to the House for a vote that could override my veto.   Sure, that’s true.  But how many of my own party are going to vote against my veto, even if they supported your spending?
Don’t I have extra ‘special’ leverage on my own team?
I’m not sure there is any version of a line item veto that I would support.   Instead I think it would be better if they (House and Senate) would just ban the use of earmarks entirely, and make all legislation stand on its own merits.
What say you?