Line-Item Veto’s Impact Has Been Slight : Congress: In most states, its effect on cutting spending is insignificant. Legislation’s potential for reducing the deficit is called uncertain.

As the House began debating the line-item veto Thursday, supporters extolled the wisdom of allowing the President to kill specific spending items from an appropriation bill without having to veto the entire measure.

Virtually lost among the bipartisan accolades, however, is one small fact: In most of the 43 states where the line-item veto is available to a governor, its impact on reducing spending has been rather insignificant.

“The potential for the item veto to decrease the deficit is uncertain,” said Robert D. Reischauer, director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Across the country, studies show, governors use line-item vetoes to change spending priorities of legislators to their own.

A 1986 analysis of line-item vetoes used by Wisconsin governors, for example, found that 70% had no fiscal impact. Of the remaining 30%, not one veto cut any spending bill by more than 2.5%.

More recently, Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson used the line-item veto 1,500 times in eight years, selectively cutting $143 million in questionable spending.

“The line-item veto, as has been wielded by Gov. Thompson, is one Wisconsin export that I’m not willing to promote,” said Russell D. Feingold, a former Democratic state lawmaker who now represents Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate.

Political scientists warn that the line-item veto can be turned on its head. In some circumstances, they said, it can lead to increased spending--particularly if governors and legislators engage in a frenzy of vote-trading over pet projects.

“It’s symbolic,” conceded Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), an ardent line-item veto proponent.

“This is not a balanced budget amendment. It’s not going to reduce the budget deficit much,” added Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a former Delaware governor. “The line-item veto is a small procedural step to bring the executive branch of government into each and every discretionary budgetary decision that is made.”

Yet even if the potential impact is modest, many lawmakers believe that it is a change worth making. “While it is true that eliminating small wasteful programs won’t balance the budget, it will put us on the right track,” said Rep. Mark W. Neumann (R-Wis.).

The House opened floor debate on the measure Thursday and sponsors hope to pass it on Monday. The veto’s political appeal has been underscored by glowing testimonials from a steady stream of past and present governors who have trooped to Washington in recent weeks to lobby for its enactment, citing examples of the kind of spending excesses that they say it can curtail.

In Delaware, lawmakers not only appropriated $1.2 million to erect new traffic lights but they also designated the intersections where the lights were to be placed. In Wisconsin, legislators authorized funds to build a snowmobile bridge over a stretch of creek. In Massachusetts, a welfare program was so broad that cash was given to people with “situational anxiety.”

In each case, a governor excised the questionable spending by using the line-item veto. And some have used it aggressively.

In just four years, Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld, a Republican, used it 1,200 times, whacking away at a $1.8-billion budget deficit without raising taxes or borrowing. “It’s crazy that the President has no such weapon,” he declared.

But skeptics, such as Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-Ill.), call the line-item veto a gimmick, noting that a federal version could be used only to kill discretionary spending, which makes up only 36% of the budget. Put another way, most of the budget--consisting of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the national debt--would be exempt from the line-item veto.

The loudest cheerleader for the presidential line-item veto is the former governor of Arkansas, who used it nearly a dozen times before moving from Little Rock to the White House two years ago.

“It is a powerful tool for fighting special interests,” President Clinton said in a letter to the congressional leadership. “It will increase the accountability of government.”

Castle, like Clinton, believes in the line-item veto’s deterrent effect. As governor of Delaware, he said, he never had to use it again after vetoing the traffic-lights appropriation in 1985, just six months into his first term.

It might seem surprising that a Republican Congress is so eager to tip the balance of power over spending so decisively toward the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, especially when the White House occupant is a Democrat. But that’s symptomatic of the power of an idea whose time may have arrived.

A line-item veto could allow the President to delete specific lines--even words or numbers--from a bill. But precisely how much line-item authority to grant the chief executive remains an open question, especially in the Senate, where members of the Republican majority have significant differences that already have delayed committee action.