The states have codified more a efficient and politically expedient means for balancing a budget. The United States Congress might want to take a hint from them.
Governor Chris Christie (and to a lesser extent Governor Jerry Brown) exercise wide discretion with the line-item veto over their states' budgets. Congress extended this power to the President in the 1990's, but the Supreme Court struck down this option for President Clinton in 1996.
Instead of a Balanced Budget Amendment, why not extend wider latitude to the President of the United States to limit spending with a Line Item Veto Amendment? With this power, the President could make the painful and unpopular cuts while safeguarding legislators from disappointed constituents. Specifically, lawmakers could slip in pork barrel projects into the budget bill, but the President--who responds to the needs of the nation--will sign the bill with significant cuts. The President can score political points with the nation by demonstrating fiscal restraint, while Congress can argue that they tries to send money to their constituents. Everyone wins because the government will be spending less, lower the deficit and easing the national debt once and for all.
The Line Item Veto: a win-win for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment