Line-Item Veto: Worse Than We Thought

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Because no budget maneuver is too arcane or seemingly trivial for us to analyze, let’s discuss the line-item veto again. Previously, we’ve argued that giving the president the power to strip out any part of a congressional spending bill he or she didn’t like would invite abuse by the executive branch.

Now the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has their own report on the line-item veto, noting that the line-item veto powers sought by this administration would enable the president to withhold funding for all sorts of programs beyond earmarks—”pork,” in other words. If Bush wanted to, he could withhold funds for months and months from, say, the Education Department, even if Congress doesn’t approve. In his 2006 budget, Bush called for, among other things, a $3.4 billion cut to education, an $866 million cut to the Department of Health and Human Services, and a $277 million cut from the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress will likely (and sensibly) reject all of these cuts—unless, of course, the president can skirt around Congress.

You’d think this sort of thing would never pass muster with the Supreme Court since it violates the separation of powers in a major way. Still, the idea needs to be stopped. Letting the president basically write legislation on his own would be catastrophic, to put it very mildly.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest