Bowles, Dole Split On Line-Item Veto

U.S. Senate hopefuls Erskine Bowles and Elizabeth Dole disagree over the importance of a presidential line-item veto in solving the nation's economic issues.

Dole, a Republican, said in an Oct. 19 debate between the candidates that her first act as a senator would be to propose legislation giving line-item veto power back to the president. But Democratic candidate Bowles said he thinks there are more pressing issues at hand.

The Line Item Veto Act originally was passed and signed into law in 1996. But the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law June 26, 1998, in a 6-3 decision.

From Jan. 1, 1997, until the Supreme Court struck down the law, President Clinton had the power to veto individual appropriations he opposed in a bill.

The line-item veto is one of four variations of the veto, which gives the executive branch of government the ability to reject all or parts of bills that are passed by the legislative branch and return them for reconsideration.

The variation passed in 1996 allowed the president to veto only dollar amounts of appropriations within bills.

The traditional argument for line-item veto has been that it allows the president to cut out pork-barrel funding -- extra, unrelated appropriations that senators tack onto bills to benefit their constituencies.

Opponents of the veto think it gives the president too much power over legislation.

Bowles has yet to take a stance for or against the veto proposal.

Dole's main focus is the nation's economy, which has stumbled of late, said Jack Cox, communications director for Dole's campaign. "The economy is the number one issue of this campaign," he said. "It is essential to get the economy going again."

Dole advocates the line-item veto as a means to cut pork and streamline the nation's finances, Cox said. "It is one of the clubs in the golf bag, but it's an essential one."

Bowles thinks there are more important issues related to the economy, said his campaign spokesman, Brad Woodhouse.

He said the line-item veto will not be Bowles' top priority. "There's a time and a place to debate a line-item veto."

Bowles will focus his efforts on helping families of North Carolina, who Woodhouse said are "reeling in these tough economic times."

Forty-three states already use forms of the line-item veto at the state level, said UNC political science Professor Virginia Gray. North Carolina is one of the seven that do not use it.

Gray said there are several governors who have reputations for their unique use of the line-item veto. Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has a red pig stamp that he uses to signify pork, and Dr. John Kitzhaber, the governor of Oregon, is known as "Dr. No" for his frequent use of the veto.

Dole thinks because the line-item veto had bipartisan support in 1996 and is used so widely at the state level, it will be feasible to pass a constitutional amendment reinstating it nationally, Cox said. "She truly believes that it is do-able and do-able quickly," he said.

But Bowles thinks focusing on the veto now will detract considerable time and effort away from issues such as schools, Social Security and jobs in North Carolina, Woodhouse said.

Gray said the use of the line-item veto at a state level has done little to decrease spending. "When you add up their vetoes, they don't add up to a hill of beans in relation to the overall size of the budget," she said.

She also pointed out that the problem with giving the president power over individual appropriations is that he cannot be as familiar with the specific items of bills as congressmen. It also is easier for congressmen to be in touch with their constituents and know their needs, Gray said.

She asked, "Are students going to be able to get ahold of a senator, or will concerns be better handled by a busy president?"

 

That State & National Editor can be reached at stntdesk@unc.edu.