Measure for Measure

For years, the nemesis of government economy has been the Pork Barrel. With every congressional district wanting its dam or irrigation ditch and every pressure group demanding its subsidy, the national debt has risen to some $250 billion. Under the present law, the President has no means of checking Congressional demands. Even when legislators are not under political pressure, they are usually unable to make wise budget decisions because of the difficulty of estimating the relative importance of various appropriations. Each year a number of appropriations bills are passed, and the total expenditure is not entirely clear. Among the many proposals to correct this situation, Senator Byrd's two bills offer the best solution--an omnibus bill for a whole year's appropriations and an item veto.

The proposed Consolidated Appropriations bill would help Congress maintain its ceiling on expenditures, by reducing the number of supplementary bills now necessary to make up deficiencies. With one bill covering the whole budget, Congressmen would be more fully aware of the extent of their expenditures. Responsibility for the public debt would be more sharply focussed on one all-important vote. Realizing this, Congressmen would hold pressure groups in much less regard. An omnibus appropriations bill, however, would hamstring the President completely, unless he were allowed an item veto.

Government critics have requested an item veto for some hundred years, but Congress has always rejected the idea, fearing permanent loss of its purse power to the President. The Byrd bill, however, provides for flexible but strong control of the President, since the Constitution would be amended only to enable Congress to confer the item veto power by statute. If the President got out of hand, Congress could pass a new law to meet the situation; if the legislature did not choose to withdraw the power completely, it could restrict the executive merely by redefining the scope of the words "item" or "provision."

Other critics have feared that an item veto might result in Congressional irresponsibility: representatives might allow pork-barreling to run rampant, knowing that the President would veto rediculous measures favoring exclusively sectional interests. Representatives, however, win elections on actual appropriations, not on futile attempts registered in the Record. Responsibility would ultimately rest with Congress, since any veto would have to be over-ridden by a two-thirds majority, and according to the Byrd bill, vetoed items would be reconsidered separately.

The principle of the item veto has already been accepted as constitutionally sound, for it is being used successfully in Puerto Rico and in thirty-six states. The support of such widely diverging political figures as Senator Byrd, William Douglas, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., and Herbert Hoover testifies to the need for a streamlined system.

The item veto, however, will need more than the support of a few stalwart individuals. Real bi-partisan cooperation will be necessary for the two-thirds majorities required for Constitutional amendment. Since many members of both parties have realized the utility of an omnibus appropriations bill, it is highly likely that Congress will pass the Consolidated General Appropriations Bill. But the legislature must realize that an omnibus bill without an item veto would mean an unbridled budget, running wild under the goadings of pressure groups that won't stop prodding.