Latest line-item veto plan offers right balance

Election after election, candidates decry "pork barrel" spending in Congress and vow to end it when they reach Washington.

Yet, year after year, it continues, with billions of dollars of questionable spending slipping through the budgeting process, attached to major appropriations bills the president doesn't dare veto. Those candidates, now members of Congress, use earmarks to send money back home for pet projects, rewarding campaign contributors and buying votes in key districts.

Supposedly conservative George W. Bush has yet to sign his first veto, and federal spending has increased 45 percent since he took office, sending the nation deeper and deeper into debt.

But Bush, Bill Clinton and Sen. Ben Nelson, all former governors, know there is a better way -- the line-item veto, available to governors in 43 states.

Clinton was even able to use the power when he was president, striking down some $800 million in spending with 11 vetoes of 82 items before the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court and later affirmed by a 6-3 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nelson, while governor, vetoed $157 million in spending to help balance the budget. Proportionally, that was much more significant than Clinton's $800 million, but neither amount should alarm opponents of the line item veto.

Bush, while calling for the additional official power, has found another way to accomplish some of the same goals of the line-item veto, using signing statements to indicate he would not enforce provisions of laws that he signed.

That raises constitutional questions of its own, as does the whole issue of presidential line-item vetos.

There are serious questions over the separation of powers, and we agree that the president should not be given control that belongs to the legislative branch of government.

But the latest proposal, passed by the House and awaiting action by the Senate, should give constitutional scholars little to worry about.

Instead of a straight veto like Clinton enjoyed, the latest proposal would instead send the specific line items back to Congress for a swift vote, where a simple majority in both the House and Senate would override the veto and send the spending items on their way.

The latest line-item veto proposal will throw the spotlight on wasteful spending, and force members of Congress to justify their support. At the same time, it preserves the delicate balance of power between two branches of government.

For the sake of financial responsibility, the U.S. Senate should pass the line-item veto.