The Line-Item Veto Gets a ‘Hello’ and a ‘Go Away’

President Clinton last year urged Congress to provide him with the line-item veto after Republicans had for so long whooped and hollered for legislation to make it a reality. But now that the president has the authority to try to control dubious budgetary add-ons by Congress it’s turning out to be not quite the waste-control tool its proponents claimed it would be. Witness Clinton’s recent gingerly approach to stripping the defense budget of various projects that Congress wanted to fund out of military spending, projects that the Pentagon had not asked for and in some cases had specifically opposed.

Congress tacked onto the defense budget a staggering 750 projects costing $11 billion. Many of these had no visible connection to what the military is supposed to be doing. Taking veto pen in hand, Clinton boldly struck out a mere 13 of these projects, saving the taxpayers $144 million. That left in place approximately $10.85 billion in unnecessary spending and more than 730 questionable projects.

Clinton described his use of the line-item veto as “responsible and quite restrained.” The restraint might well have been influenced by the bellows of rage that greeted his earlier line-item vetoes on a military construction measure. There Clinton nixed 38 projects worth $287 million. Had he vetoed a resolution in praise of Mother’s Day the shock and anger that came from some in Congress could not have been greater.

The projects that were tacked onto defense spending despite the Pentagon’s palpable lack of interest in them aim in almost every case at cementing the standing of a member of Congress with his or her constituents. In other words they come right out of the pork barrel. Their purpose is to maintain or create jobs, subsidize or wholly finance research that will benefit favored constituents, erect a building, a highway or a dam that someday might even carry the name of its congressional sponsor.

To a great extent, of course, this is what politics is about. And, as the nation’s history shows, financing projects geared to aiding a particular area or state or interest can still prove to be a means for serving the greater national good. But some sense of proportion ought to be maintained. Take, as just one example, funding for the SR-71 reconnaissance plane. The Pentagon was ready eight years ago to ground the aging spy plane--it was developed in the 1960s--but year after year Congress insisted on spending money to keep it ready to fly again. This year Clinton struck $39 million in SR-71 money from the defense budget. It was about time.

Why didn’t Clinton veto more unwanted projects? Because, as he well knew, each pet plan he erased would reduce still more his prospects for getting support in Congress for programs he wants, especially fast-track trade legislation. So Clinton used his veto with what he calls restraint and others would call timidity. Now comes word that once a balanced budget is in fact achieved, something likely in the next three or four years, line-item veto authority could be suspended. Our guess is that Congress and probably the next president will be delighted to see that happen. Funds for the obsolete SR-71 spy plane were among the few cuts exercised by the president.