Editorials
Thursday, April 17, 1997UNTIL the Supreme Court rules, there is still hope for the line-item veto. But a federal lower court ruling that the measure is unconstitutional puts its survival in doubt. District Judge Thomas P. Jackson held that Congress impermissibly tried to hand over to the executive authority to delete specific spending items from appropriations bills. Line-item veto could
curb federal spendingThe judge held that the 1996 act "effectively permits the president to repeal duly enacted provisions of federal law. This he cannot do." President Clinton, an enthusiastic supporter of the line-item veto, vowed to appeal the decision directly to the Supreme Court. He called the veto "very important in helping preserve the integrity of federal spending." Presidents as far back as Ulysses Grant have asked for the line-item veto -- which most state governors have -- but it was Ronald Reagan who revived interest in the idea. Clinton, as a former governor, appreciated the veto's potential value and has plugged for it. Republicans who guided the measure through Congress hoped that a GOP president would get to wield it and were chagrined when Clinton was re-elected.
No matter which party holds the presidency, the line-item veto is in the public interest because it enables a president to eliminate spending items without vetoing an entire appropriations bill. Those items are included precisely because their sponsors know the president won't veto the entire bill. It's a tool to restrain congressional spending.
Unfortunately a true line-item veto would require amending the Constitution, a difficult task. Instead, its supporters devised a so-called "enhanced rescissions" authority over appropriations bills that had already become law. Under it, the president could "cancel" specific dollar items in spending bills, new entitlement programs or tax breaks. Congress could pass a bill to reverse such actions, but the president could veto it.
It was this complex procedure that Judge Jackson found unconstitutional, to the delight of the line-item veto's leading opponent, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. He declared, "As long as Congress has the power of the purse, the people's liberties are preserved." Perhaps, but something has to be done to control federal spending, and the line-item veto shows promise.
FOR the second time in two years, the Senate has voted to establish a temporary storage facility for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Last year's bill died when the House failed to vote on it, but the new version may fare better. However, President Clinton is expected to veto the measure if it reaches his desk, and the Senate vote fell two short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto if all 100 senators voted. Hawaii's Senators Akaka and Inouye voted no. Storing nuclear waste
The problem is one of political will, not of science. The disposal containers are designed to last at least 1,000 years while the radioactivity inside decays. Nuclear waste is a hot issue, in more ways than one. But Washington can't continue to avoid it.
SINCE the United Nations-supervised elections in 1993, Cambodia has had a democratically elected government, but a shaky one. It became considerably shakier when a grenade attack on an opposition political party's rally in Phnom Penh on March 30 killed 16 people and wounded more than 100. Blast in Cambodia
The credibility of the government is at stake. If it fails to capture and punish the assailants promptly, the fabric of Cambodian democracy could unravel.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
