4 ms·

> Note that line-item vetoing still exists widely across the US and is quite useful. Almost every other country on earth seems to get on fine without it. It s

by twic 7y ago

> Note that line-item vetoing still exists widely across the US and is quite useful. Almost every other country on earth seems to get on fine without it. It seems like a bizarre and trivially abusable power to me. Say a left-wing legislature passes a bill to make taxation more progressive, by decreasing the standard rate of tax, and adding an additional rate of tax for people earning over a million dollars a year. A right-wing governor can just line-item veto the second part, and turn it into a tax cut. So either the legislature simply won't pass such a bill, effectively silencing the voice of the people as expressed through their votes for legislators, or they will have to draft it in a cunning way to make it line-item-veto-proof, spending time and text, and reducing clarity, to overcome that obstacle.

xref 7y ago
Decided to look up what countries use line item vetos, amusingly the Wikipedia pages lists: Brazil, Panama, and three subsections about the US including during the civil war confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
walshemj 7y ago
From a democratic perspective how exactly is having an executive be able to change a motion after it has passed a "good" thing
- sarah180 7y ago
  America was not intended to be a pure democracy. The "checks and balances" of our government are really several different forms of government. We have the democracy of the public, the plebeian officers of the house, the aristocracy of the senate, the council of philosophers on the court, and the dictatorship of the executive. None of this, however, argues in favor of giving the executive the authority to rewrite legislation. Even the much more mild line-item veto is an absurd workaround for a broken legislative process. If the legislature wants smaller, separable acts, it doesn't need to go crying to King Solomon.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    A similar argument applies to every other country most people recognize to be democratic, even more so to countries with an unelected legislative body like the UK. The checks and balances in the US are relatively strong but not unusually so, as far as I can tell, though bicameral state governments are a little unique.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    Unfortunately, the legislative process may be inherently broken. The bar to pass legislation is 50%+1, and it's very hard to find any issue on which you can get a genuine majority entirely in isolation. What happens instead is that allies are made, and they agree to support each other: I'll vote for your thing if you'll vote for mine. That's most effective when you can lump those votes into one, rather than two bills voted serially. That happens sometimes anyway, but some bills (especially budgets) contain thousands if items each of which is only of interest to a minority. That happens even without bad faith or earmarking. A bill to build a road between two states is most favored by those two states; a weapons system makes jobs where it's made, and the runner-up gets nothing. That's the ordinary give-and-take of trying to run a large country. A line-item veto upsets the ability to do that... which seems appropriate when it runs off the rails, but also prevents legitimate business. I don't have a good solution to that problem, and I'd be very happy if King Solomon were to propose one. Running a country of hundreds of millions of people with diverse, and often competing, interests is hard even under the best of circumstances. And today, I believe, the circumstances are not best.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  It's a check against systemic entropy.
unishark 7y ago
The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. Not being a fan of progressive taxation, I don't see your example as a bad outcome. If they want to raise taxes on some, pass it without the misdirection/"sweeteners" provided by tax cuts for others. That's not to say I'm a supporter of line-item veto overall. Though note that like all vetoes it can be overridden with a larger majority. So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  The governor is a predominantly executive (not legislative) branch, and people know that when they elect a governor. What if a sysadmin could deploy half the API endpoints in a piece of software? Seems like a bad idea, right? So called sweeteners are often necessary to create good policy. Often a policy will be overall good for a population but slightly bad for a large group of people (e.g. free trade). There needs to be a way to compensate those negatively affected (e.g. through reeducation programs). If a governor can selectively pass free trade but leave out the part of the deal that made it palatable, they completely change the law and screw over tons of people. Oh, and progressive taxation is a great way to eat the rich. Fuck the state and fuck capital, we will destroy anything that stands in the way of democracy.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  > The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. This just means that the legislature either won't pass the bill, or will pass a convoluted version that can't be line-item vetoed. >So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way. Presume that there is an election. Party A takes control of the governorship with 50.1% of the vote. Party B wins 65% of the seats in the legislature. The executive has the power to line-item veto any bill, and Party B cannot overrule the veto (presuming 2/3 majority is required), despite the slim majority Party A won the governorship by.
analog31 7y ago
The Wisconsin legislative districts are heavily gerrymandered, so the "voice of the people" is limited. At least the governor is elected in a recognizable sense.

by twic 7y ago

xref 7y ago

Decided to look up what countries use line item vetos, amusingly the Wikipedia pages lists: Brazil, Panama, and three subsections about the US including during the civil war confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

walshemj 7y ago

From a democratic perspective how exactly is having an executive be able to change a motion after it has passed a "good" thing

sarah180 7y ago
America was not intended to be a pure democracy. The "checks and balances" of our government are really several different forms of government. We have the democracy of the public, the plebeian officers of the house, the aristocracy of the senate, the council of philosophers on the court, and the dictatorship of the executive. None of this, however, argues in favor of giving the executive the authority to rewrite legislation. Even the much more mild line-item veto is an absurd workaround for a broken legislative process. If the legislature wants smaller, separable acts, it doesn't need to go crying to King Solomon.
- vinay427 7y ago
  A similar argument applies to every other country most people recognize to be democratic, even more so to countries with an unelected legislative body like the UK. The checks and balances in the US are relatively strong but not unusually so, as far as I can tell, though bicameral state governments are a little unique.
- jfengel 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the legislative process may be inherently broken. The bar to pass legislation is 50%+1, and it's very hard to find any issue on which you can get a genuine majority entirely in isolation. What happens instead is that allies are made, and they agree to support each other: I'll vote for your thing if you'll vote for mine. That's most effective when you can lump those votes into one, rather than two bills voted serially. That happens sometimes anyway, but some bills (especially budgets) contain thousands if items each of which is only of interest to a minority. That happens even without bad faith or earmarking. A bill to build a road between two states is most favored by those two states; a weapons system makes jobs where it's made, and the runner-up gets nothing. That's the ordinary give-and-take of trying to run a large country. A line-item veto upsets the ability to do that... which seems appropriate when it runs off the rails, but also prevents legitimate business. I don't have a good solution to that problem, and I'd be very happy if King Solomon were to propose one. Running a country of hundreds of millions of people with diverse, and often competing, interests is hard even under the best of circumstances. And today, I believe, the circumstances are not best.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
It's a check against systemic entropy.

unishark 7y ago

The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. Not being a fan of progressive taxation, I don't see your example as a bad outcome. If they want to raise taxes on some, pass it without the misdirection/"sweeteners" provided by tax cuts for others. That's not to say I'm a supporter of line-item veto overall. Though note that like all vetoes it can be overridden with a larger majority. So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way.

CameronNemo 7y ago
The governor is a predominantly executive (not legislative) branch, and people know that when they elect a governor. What if a sysadmin could deploy half the API endpoints in a piece of software? Seems like a bad idea, right? So called sweeteners are often necessary to create good policy. Often a policy will be overall good for a population but slightly bad for a large group of people (e.g. free trade). There needs to be a way to compensate those negatively affected (e.g. through reeducation programs). If a governor can selectively pass free trade but leave out the part of the deal that made it palatable, they completely change the law and screw over tons of people. Oh, and progressive taxation is a great way to eat the rich. Fuck the state and fuck capital, we will destroy anything that stands in the way of democracy.
jml7c5 7y ago
> The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. This just means that the legislature either won't pass the bill, or will pass a convoluted version that can't be line-item vetoed. >So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way. Presume that there is an election. Party A takes control of the governorship with 50.1% of the vote. Party B wins 65% of the seats in the legislature. The executive has the power to line-item veto any bill, and Party B cannot overrule the veto (presuming 2/3 majority is required), despite the slim majority Party A won the governorship by.

analog31 7y ago

The Wisconsin legislative districts are heavily gerrymandered, so the "voice of the people" is limited. At least the governor is elected in a recognizable sense.