A long standing goal of fiscal conservatives is to give presidents line item veto authority. This allows them to strike spending items from appropriations bills. They can do this and not feel the heat because they serve a national constituency. Members of Congress tend to be defeated when they do these things because their constituents tend to benefit from these projects and can easily ficus their rage on their House members and to a lesser - but still real - extent to their Senators. Their impact on presidential races is minuscule.
In the 1990s, Congress passed a law allowing the president to strike items from an appropriations bill. Clinton did so, and many stuck. But lawsuits followed from those affected by the cuts and when the case reached the Supreme Court, they decided that the law violated the checks and balances by giving the the president legislative power and interfering with Congress' power of the purse. The presentment clause in the Article One Section Seven, is interpreted to mean that the president must ether sign or veto the entire bill placed before him, not pick and choose.
The House is trying again though and this week passed the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011 (HR 3521). See GovTrack's page on it here. They are attempting to overcome the objections made by the court in the previous attempt by making a significant modification to the process.
From USA Today: Supporters say the bill has been written to meet constitutional standards. They say that while the president can propose items for rescission, or elimination, Congress must vote on the revised spending package and then the president must sign what is in effect a new bill.
The Senate has yet to consider the bill. As my 2302s begin to look at the executive branch soon, its worth pointing out that this seems to be another effort on the part of the legislature - at least indirectly - to minimize its powers and expand those of the executive. They are willingly giving up their complete control of the appropriations process and granting presidents the ability - effectively - to edit their work
In an excellent overview in The Monkey Cage, a commentator says its not about giving up power, but instead about "blame avoidance." If the president has this power, then the president can be blamed for runaway spending, not Congress: Giving just enough responsibility to the president to make it seem the deficit is his problem – without enough responsibility to actually reduce the deficit – becomes an attractive option.
Some additional links:
- A statement from Paul Ryan, House Budget Chair.
- A similar statement from the Ranking Democrat on the committee.
