Line-item veto a risk to Nevada

Tuesday, April 9, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

THE line-item veto, heralded as the latest weapon in the war on federal spending, is a terrible idea whose time, unfortunately, has come.

President Clinton has understandably supported the legislation, which cleared both houses last month, and will sign it shortly. Other presidents have endorsed the concept since it would have given them more political power. The bill shifts important budget-making authority to the executive branch, probably unconstitutionally, and could open a new era in pork legislation.

The legislation will permit a president to veto portions of legislation while leaving the rest of the bill intact. For example, if a defense appropriation bill contains funding for a project at Nellis Air Force Base, the president can sign the bill after deleting the Nellis provision.

The line-item veto also will foster politicking, ensuring large population states receive the bulk of the federal largess. That won't be good for smaller population states like Nevada. Presidents hungry for votes could cater to states like California and New York, while ignoring sparsely populated areas. Nevada's four-member congressional delegation won't be able to marshal the support needed to restore vetoed funding. No wonder Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan voted against it.

The legislation also could upset the balance of power. All legislation is the result of compromise among disparate interests. Bills benefiting cities can gain support from rural states if agricultural riders are attached. Under the line-item veto, the president will become a new player, tilting voter-endorsed interests in the House and Senate.

Proponents argue the line-item veto is an important tool for the president to weed out pork-barrels. But, similar tools have been in place since the Constitution was ratified. If a president found a bill objectionable, he could veto the entire package, forcing Congress to remove the rider. Or Congress could override.

The legislation presents a fundamental political shift. Twenty years ago, after President Nixon illegally withheld appropriations from selected federal agencies, in an effort to alter the intent of Congress, the House and Senate asserted its constitutional powers by creating its own budget office and tightening checks on where the money went. Then, the feeling was the executive branch had become too imperial.

Today, Congress is saying it no longer wants to be responsible for reducing the deficit and is tossing that power to the White House. It's doubtful if Congress can abdicate a fundamental element in the separation of powers, one that dates to the beginnings of American and English representative government. Like the balanced-budget amendment, the line-item veto is another gimmick to force responsibility on a government otherwise incapable of being so.

The Constitution gave budget-making powers to Congress for a good reason, to limit possible excesses of the executive branch. Congress and the president should not be able to rewrite the rules, in the name of deficits or any whimsy of the moment.

This bill, which will undoubtedly become law, should be quickly taken to the Supreme Court to give it the assessment it deserves -- unconstitutionality.