I'd love a line-item veto as well; alas, the Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional. We'd need a constitutional amendment to get it.

The Line Item Veto takes away the "intent" of Congress - so it will never happen.

I just reviewed the opinion from 1998.

SCOTUS said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices - either sign legislation or send it back to Congress (or do nothing and it will become law on its own).

Justice Stevens - writing for the 6-3 majority - said that it would take a constitutional amendment.

"If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.

The Line Item Veto takes away the "intent" of Congress

That may be, but the system is absolutely broken; it's a political catch-22. There needs to be a drastic change or a compromise, perhaps a veto dependent on a certain smaller percentage of legislative support. The pork and its eternal motivation could lead to our financial ruin.

As you said, perhaps an amendment is in order. I'd certainly prioritize that over something like the FMA.

We really need to just make congressional salaries & pensions tied to a balanced budget.

I'd prioritize a line-item veto over the FMA, too -- and I support the FMA!

Incidentally, while the line-item veto bill does contain a section laying out how to overturn the line-item veto (via a special "disapproval bill"), but can you find anywhere in the text of that bill where it says how much of a majority would be required? I can't find it anywhere; either it's not there or else I'm just not seeing it. It seems to me that a two-thirds majority would be in keeping with the spirit of the intent of the Constitution; but in the absence of any other language, I conclude that a "disapproval bill" would have needed only a simple majority to pass, thereby rendering the power of the President's line-item veto much weaker.

Am I right, or am I completely off-base here?

I would say you are right, but I also admit I haven't read the bill or the SCOTUS case to know for certain.

I am not real keen on screwing around with the constitution, but I might be willing to support an amendment for a line item veto.

Also, more than tying congression salaries and benefits to the budget, I would like to see them ditch pensions entirely. I don't think the founding fathers ever intended for the US congress to be a permanent job for members. I don't know that I like the idea of term limits, but I think they could structure the pay and benefits to discourage making congress a career.

The line item veto is what enabled governors to balance their state budgets. It really is the most viable solution to out of control pork spending.

Unfortunately, it would require a constitutional amendment.

I voted for GW, and I'm a big fan of his (with some significant reservations), but I utterly loathed his father. Some of you probably remember him: the guy who presided over the end of the Cold War, and never, ever made a speech acknowledging that 35 years of perseverance in the face of significant domestic dissent (*kof*Dems*kof*) had finally achieved its goal. The closest he came was going to Kiev, two weeks before the final dissolution of the USSR, and warning his audience that they shouldn't do anything "intemperate" like declaring independence; his own staff called it the "chicken Kiev speech."

I know this sounds OT, but it's not. My point is that Bush 41 was totally disengaged from the big, high-profile policy issues that I expect a president to deal with. Every January I watched the guy give a State of the Union address where he banged the podium and demanded a line item veto, and for the next twelve months he did precisely Bo Diddley to actually get one. I knew he didn't mean a word he said, and it was just one more reason I wanted to kick in the picture tube every time I saw him.

I'm totally behind Bill on this one: a constitutional amendment giving the Prez a line item veto is way overdue, and considerably more important than the FMA. Also, it doesn't give me the rather icky feeling that I'm supporting a legitimate principle (i.e., judicial constructivism) by lining up with people that I just don't like (i.e., homophobes).

P.S. Just re-read this post, and realized that it sounded like a snotty, dismissive put-down of supporters of the FMA. Honestly, I'm not snotty or dismissive--if I were, I'd be posting on DU. Nor am I a threadjacker (if that's not a word, it should be). I won't respond to anyone on this thread who comments one way or the other on FMA. But if Bill sees fit to open a thread on the topic, I'd be interested in hearing an argument in support of the amendment that I could present to a gay friend without blushing.

Utron I agree-if we are going to dicker around with the constitution a line item veto is by far the better amendment to push at the moment.

While I loath judicial activism, I really do not want to see the marraiage amendment passed. To follow the tanget a little further I doubt all the state amendments would have passed this election cycle had Mass not had its set of legislators from the bench and Newsome not decided to have his experiment in civil disobedience. This is an issue that needs to be debated in the public square and in our legislative houses, not pushed through by judicial fiat.

There's another way which would not require a Constitutional amendment: dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives. Remember that in 1790 the number of constituents each representatiave stood for was about 38,000 (Washington though that was too many). Now it's about 680,000. That would make it significantly harder to build coalitions in favor of spending and reduce the rewards for doing so since each representatives district would be trolling for a substantially small slice of the pie.

The benefits of a BBA are illusory and paradoxical. I hope the Constitution is not changed and our "corrective" energy is spent in other ways that better impact the culture of Congress.

Amidst the many ruses of partisanism, we've missed a few things that should be addressed:

1) Why is the federal government paying the salaries of Congress members and staff? Unlike the Administrative and Judicial branches, they work for their respective states, not the federal government.

2) While there is some basis in courtesy to allow subscription to federal medical insurance programs, there seems no reasonable basis to allow federal pensioning of Congressional members and their personal staff. That too, should be the decision and burden of the respective states.

One of the great problems I see: The members of Congress have become the representives for the Federal Government within their respective states.

This is the opposite of what our founders intended Did they not intend members of Congress to represent their state or district within the Federal Government, and not the other way around?

I wish I knew more about the history of salary and benefit legislation for Congressional members and staff. But I think the above is basically correct.

When the state's members of Congress are on the payroll of the federal government a fatal conflict of interest is created. When I look at Congress through this lens, I see spoiled fruit rotting everywhere.

Rather than pursuing the bandaid of a BBA, our national social and political capital should focus on 'firing' Congressional members and personal staff; kicking them out of the federal government and into their respective states to get paid for their "services."

This seething paradox creates one of the great unabated corruptions of our national interest. Clean this up and the culture of who seeks Congressional office will change for the better.

We are violating the founders grand design in perpetuating the way Congress is compensated. The result cannot help but be perverse. The rotted fruit is everywhere.

And should the swarm of lawyers and hangers-on sprout wings, they would not become angels, but would instead be eternally rejoined with their fellow Diptera.

How Congress is paid and who pays them matters very much indeed. Making this right will correct many wrongs.

Well, willem, I can answer part of your question. The reason that the Congress is paid by the federal government is that the federal government is required to do so:

U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.