« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Could Obama be girding for a healthcare repeal fight?

The NYT reports this morning that Barack Obama, like many presidents before him, is now seeking line-item veto authority.

President Obama, in his latest effort to signal fiscal responsibility against the rising debt, plans this month to ask Congress to give him and future presidents greater power to try to delete individual items from spending bills.

In doing so, Mr. Obama will join a long line of his predecessors who have sought either line-item veto power or, after the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled such a veto unconstitutional, some other rescission authority that passes muster. Congress once again is unlikely to be receptive, though growing antidebt sentiment could give the proposal life.

Of course cynics like me would say “Now why would someone who has racked up a trillion or two in debt be suddenly interested in vetoing spending items from his own party?”  The answer, I believe, is: “he isn’t.”  The more likely scenario is that Obama is preparing for an increasingly-likely GOP takeover of the House and Senate, and (more importantly) he may be positioning to fight Republican efforts to repeal the now-passed healthcare “reform” legislation.

Since Obama is certain to veto any legislation to repeal HCR, the only real way for Republicans to push through a rollback would be to attach repeal measures to spending bills that Obama would not be likely to veto in total.  A line-item veto would provide the means to cut those items while leaving spending intact.  Now if a GOP-controlled Congress simply fails to fund HCR items, this obviously is irrelevant, since he could not veto what does not exist.  But if the Republicans used other means to repeal, the line-item veto could provide Obama the ability to eliminate them.

Based on past history, the President is unlikely to succeed.  But this could be the early warning sign that the Democrats are preparing for the inevitable battle royal on healthcare repeal.

COMMENTS

  • Leopard1996

    If he voted with the majority to not allow Clinton to have it, then we are probably safe, but if decides to go ahead and lean toward his more progressive leanings, we will be screwed.

  • Duke

    Wisconsin has the line item veto, and is not in the process of trying to restrict it again, because it allows the executive to legislate. When Tommy Thompson was Gov. he turned it into what became known as the “Vanna White Veto.” He struck individual letters and numbers to make legislation, mainly the state budget, say something entirely different than what was passed by the legislature.

    That was changed to require that only whole words could be vetoed. Gov. Doyle adapted that to, again, amend legislation by striking whole pages of words in order to get to the word he wanted to create a new sentence.

    We’re now trying to amend the state constitution again to require the Gov. to veto entire items, not just words. It’s like we’ve moved from letters to words, and now we’re on our way to whole sentences and soon paragraphs. It’s like herding cats, or nailing Jello to the wall.

    This would be a horrible power to give to the U.S. President, and especially to a social engineer like Obozo!

  • Duke

    Change “Wisconsin has the line item veto, and is not in the process…” to “Wisconsin has the line item veto, and is NOW in the process…”

    See, now, that’s how the stock market gets trashed!! It couldn’t be the ‘bamster’s fault.

  • earlgrey

    As much as I would like to be hopeful about Repeal HCR.

  • crassus

    What about “comprehensive immigration reform”

    Veto border security
    Sign the rest

    Mitt Romney advocated this in 2008 against Giuliani, and he was dead wrong. Whatever, “pragmatic” benefits it provides, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

  • Next93

    Apparently in this regard, the boy president hold the GOP in higher regard than I do.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    I thought the line-item veto has already been ruled unconstitutional, and to create one would require a Constitutional amendment. I don’t see that happening before the 2012 election, those things take time.

    But if it were done that way, we should support it, because it would be really useful for a Republican president. And if the Rs take over Congress, they can always gut Obamacare simply by not funding any of it, which the line-item veto can’t fix.

    I do think we should take elementary precautions, like requiring complete sentences or clauses to be vetoed in toto, so as to avoid the Wisconsin problem. Which is pretty funny, I hadn’t heard about that.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    For DC we usually talk about a line item veto restricted to allowing the President to remove specific appropriations, and that’s it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Achance

    but it really sucks when it applies to you. We have it at the state level here and it is simply used as a means to reward friends and punish enemies and you constantly have a state of war between governors and finance committee chairs. In some cases it results in MORE spending because you have to buy chits to over-ride the vetoes in order to pass things.

  • Bill S

    And i forgot to link to the original NYT article. I just added the link to the story.

    The real news here, by the way, is that by seeking the line item veto, Obama is tacitly admitting that the Dems are likely to go down in November. Why else would he need such power to carve up his own party’s legislation?

  • indyjohn

    Obama is not serious about this. He knows that the line item veto does not pass constituitional muster. He is trying to distract attention from his fiscal profligacy with a mock show of newfound concern for the way that taxpayer money is spent.
    By the way, if you were a Democrat in Congress, would you actually give Obama the line item veto? Everyone in Washington now knows that Obama is a self-serving fraud. I doubt that anyone trusts him to keep his word. If given such power, he would use it to grandstand, even if it hurt his party.

  • GCBWI

    Set up a system and sooner or later people will figure out how to use that system to do things that weren’t intended. Senators and representatives load bills with amendments/riders which don’t have anything to do with the original purpose of the bill because they’re allowed to do so.

    It’s natural to think, well, just change the rules so that they can’t do that. Easily said, not so easily done. The line item veto is one such attempt.

    As Duke notes above, it’s very hard to write up the constitutional language for a line item veto so that it accomplishes the only the intended goal without giving the executive more dangerous powers.

  • jimc1969

    Healthcare ?
    I think Obama wants to veto the defence budget, maybe homeland security too ?
    Thats the only thing about this thta REALLY scares me. We have a line item veto in NJ, and it works out ok, But we are talking GOVERNORS. I’m not comfortable with an Obama, Carter or a Clinton being about to kill defence spending in this manner………..

  • crassus

    Will it really be limited to “appropriations”? Reconcilliation was supposed to be used only for budgetary matters that reduced the deficit. Did Obamacare meet either of these qualifications? Not a chance. But it was still allowed to go through anyway. Furthermore, I agree with Rudy (which isn’t too often) that it is unconstitutional. Line-item veto is no way to reduce the deficit. In fact, not even cutting programs will do it. Sevaral departments need to go- Re- Education, No Energy, Homelessness & Urban Destruction.

  • crassus

    Two of the big things from the famed “Contract With America” are being talked about a lot today. Additionally, they are both Constitutional amendments.

    (1) Term Limits
    (2) Balanced Budget

    First off, forgetting whether or not it is feasible, I do not support term limits. It will not, in my opinion, reduce ‘corruption’- if anything it might do the opposite. The bigger point is that there are just as many scoundrels in their first term (Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkely) as there are who’ve been in the senate for decades (Harry Reid, Dick Durbin). In fact, even in the Republican caucus, some of our best have been in congress for a long time- Jim Inhofe, Jim Bunning, Michael Enzi.

    The Balanced Budget is good, but it is obviously used as a political pawn by most politicians. One, there is no way that 3/4 of the states will ratify this, because they get tons of money from the feds. Two, if they actually thought the budget needs to be balanced then they wouldn’t vote for exploding deficits. Just think, in the 1990s Joe Biden voted for a Balance Budget Amendment! Rather than take a pledge to vote for an amendment, politicians should do as Rand Paul did, and pledge not to vote for a budget that is not balanced, or at least any budget that doesn’t reduce the previous years budget by half.