June 20, 2007

Rudy: Against The Line-Item Veto Before He Supported It?

Rudy Giuliani has had a tough week, and he's making it even more difficult. Today, Giuliani sang the praises of the line-item veto, an idea conservatives have boosted even during Democratic administrations. However, Rudy omitted a little personal history regarding the line-item veto that Congress passed in 1995:

In his speech, Giuliani called for the country to enact a constitutional amendment that allows for a line-item veto so the president could strip wasteful spending from legislation. "The president doesn't have that power under our Constitution," he said. "You're only going to change that with a constitutional amendment."

As mayor in the 1990s, Giuliani successfully sued to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item veto that would have given President Clinton that such power.

Technically, this isn't entirely inconsistent. Giuliani wants a Constitutional amendment adding the line-item veto -- so that people like Rudy Giuliani can't sue to end it if it just gets passed as federal legislation. Kim Strassel covered this in April at the Wall Street Journal:

Take the line-item veto. For decades New York had taken advantage of a special program that allowed it alone to reap extra federal Medicaid dollars. The city's broken health system was dependent on this booty, and its loss would have required painful change. Mr. Giuliani instead sued, portraying the issue as us-against-them. When he won, his press release declared it a "great victory" for "the people of the city, the state and the constitution of the U.S." No mention of the other Americans who got to float NYC's bills.

The line-item veto is a good idea, and Rudy is right to support it now. It should have been in force ever since Congress passed it during the Clinton administration. The Supreme Court should have allowed Congress to set its own terms with the executive branch on budget process, understanding that Congress could rescind the line-item veto at any time as well. Unfortunately, Rudy helped put it in front of the Supreme Court and cheered their faulty decision.

He should explain his journey from LIV opponent to LIV proponent in clearer terms than this.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10300

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rudy: Against The Line-Item Veto Before He Supported It?:

» Rudy’s List from Iowa Voice
Rudy Giuliani gave a speech in Des Moines yesterday laying out his "12 Committments" to voters. … ... [Read More]

Comments (24)

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | June 20, 2007 8:19 PM

The Clintonian LIV was unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS was right to strike it down. Congress cannot cede its constitutionally mandated authority to the Presidency without an amendment, which is what that version of the LIV did. (For the same reason, the War Powers Act of the 1970s is unconstitutional, but I don't think it's ever been seriously challenged.)

I see no problem with Giuliani's stance, for two reasons: 1) he was right about the measure's unconstitutionality, and 2) he was acting as NYC's mayor, in the City's interest. (Short-term interest, perhaps, but still understandable.) His desire for a constitutionally sound LIV does not represent a flip-flop, in my opinion.

On a broader issue, this campaign is going to turn into a festival of "flip-flop accusations," I fear. It's beginning to look like no one can change his or her mind from positions held years ago, and that the only safe candidate is the one who's held the same positions from birth. It's one thing to ask a candidate to explain their positions and what lead him or her to change them, it's another to whip out videos from years ago to play "gotcha!"

(Not that I'm saying you did this, Ed. I was thinking in more general terms.)

Posted by Mike D | June 20, 2007 9:24 PM

good question, Diwee.

Posted by Adjoran | June 20, 2007 11:53 PM

I agree with Anthony. Rudy can always "explain" his position by pointing out the SCOTUS agreed with HIM, not the Congress and President, on the constitutionality of the issue.

The negativity of this race is disturbing, and it is all coming from the McCain campaign, which seems determined that, if he can't win the nomination, its value be diminished for whoever does win.

It's ridiculous and counterproductive, and it needs to stop. Funny that a guy so adamant that citizens not be able to "attack" incumbents doesn't mind savaging his foes. It's all about whose ox is being gored, I suppose . . . but I don't see it from Rudy, Mitt, or Fred.

Posted by wickedpinto | June 21, 2007 12:40 AM

anthony is right, if you never make people make decisions, you can never hold them accountable.

Posted by williak | June 21, 2007 12:58 AM

I don't get this infatuation with LIV.

Consider a generic piece of legislation with several Titles, myriad Parts, umpteen Sections and countless Subsections. Each clause in the Act will have been proposed, negotiated, "sweetened", "watered down", compromised, traded for, bought, sold and hammered out. A constantly changing mix of persons, pressure groups and constituencies will have come together in agreement (or grim acceptance) of each and every facet of the bill. The final form of the Act represents the sum total of each and every political accomodation needed to reach balance of the various forces at play on the issues addressed by the legislation. It is, in other words, a work of political art painstakingly created by very hard work by smart, talented people.

Now along comes LIV and Part B of Title III is struck. Just think of the damage done to the delicate political balance by striking a portion of the bill while leaving the rest intact. Suppose you had worked for years to get Part B into Title III and had finally accepted that in order to do so, you would accept the bitter pill of Part A Title V which your political opponents insisted on. They would receive a windfall via the LIV and you would get the death sentence. How does LIV respect in any way the compromise you and your opponent agreed to in good faith?

If LIV were somehow adopted, legislators would HAVE TO develop mechanisms to get around it in order for the political process to work at all. You'd get into ridiculously complicated Titles that would become invalid if any other Title or part thereof was struck by LIV.

So, there is no point to LIV. It's a solution in search of a problem. If you don't like what's in the bill, fight to change the bill!

williak

Posted by Rose | June 21, 2007 1:54 AM

It's ridiculous and counterproductive, and it needs to stop. Funny that a guy so adamant that citizens not be able to "attack" incumbents doesn't mind savaging his foes. It's all about whose ox is being gored, I suppose . . . but I don't see it from Rudy, Mitt, or Fred.

Posted by: Adjoran at June 20, 2007 11:53 PM
****************

That is what he has always done to Bush, from the GET GO! He has stomped America into a puddle not a few times, in order to gore Bush's ox.

Posted by ajacksonian | June 21, 2007 4:27 AM

Lets say a Presidential candidate really wanted to address pork spending. You know, earmarks. Off-budget spending.

The clue to how to do it is in its nature: It is off-budget spending.

It does not show up on the President's desk for signature as it is contained in annexes that are appended to the budget, but just don't make it to the desk of the President to be signed. It is like Congress is embarassed to do that...

So, as it is not on the President's desk for full review, which is a part of the Constitutional process, there is one simple solution if there is a President willing to have a bit of backbone. It is very simple. Say the following: "Any item that does not show up on my desk for review and official signature cannot be spent, and I hereby direct all parts of the Federal Government to ignore all off-budget earmarks. If Congress wants them passed they can be incorporated directly into the budget for review."

Yes, that junk just doesn't get to see the light of day... these 'Congressionally Direct Actions' are let to slide because they are the grease in the political world. Filthy grease that doesn't get any review nor has to be put to the Executive for overview. It is a hard process to find them *because* they are 'off-budget' and hidden from the public until those annexes and other appendages to the budget get published weeks or months later.

Put them in the real budget with real program behind it. Otherwise any line item pointing to 'off-budget' spending can and should remain unspent until Congress passes it into the official budget and not serve as a 'placeholder' for future graft in an undefined way. That, of course, takes a President willing to make Congress do its job. Maybe a Presidential Candidate can say something about this... because that is part of the responsibility they are running for.

Posted by syn | June 21, 2007 5:49 AM

Rudy's has my 'if there is no alternative' vote but honestly living in NYC 15 years now has made me realize that social liberal politicians cannot be trusted. Everyone is talking up how great Rudy was with regard to NYC economic growth but fail to admit that NYC's economic growth was not about what Rudy did, it was all about the 'dot.com' bubble which broke in 1999, when the recession came and many companies here in NYC began laying off people.

Another observation about social liberal politicians, Bloomberg's economy depends upon his high property tax and his high cigarette tax along with his 'NYC needs $200 plus million a year to protect the city from terrorism which is really no different than a heart attack.' more than his ability to grow the economy.

I can no longer defend my own city or it's politicians who offers so many first tier cultural venues (ie museums,theater, music, libraries,social services for every little complaint) yet is always complaining about how their urban folk are so deprived of everything.

I imagine all those folks in rural and suburban areas whould enjoy a few cultural venues in their own areas instead of having to fly to NYC where they spend their money on the whinning social liberal urban folk who feel so deprived. But, because social liberal politicians are head deep in satisfying their collectivist billionaire club living out in the Hamptons the urban folk get all the cultural goodies while talking down all those rural and suburban folk as being backward.

Even though I live in NYC I am hoping Tancredo's amendment to deny Homeland Security funding to sanctuary cities like NYC because this would finally force social liberal politicians and their collectivist billionaire friends to understand that just because you live in NYC dosen't entitle you to screw over the rest of the country.

Posted by Captain Ed | June 21, 2007 5:49 AM

I want to address a couple of points made here. First, it is not "negative" to address consistency between stated policy and actual performance in office. Primaries are about choices, and that means taking a look at how the candidates executed their previous offices and comparing it to their positions today. Attacking Mitt's religion and Rudy's marital woes is "going negative". If you can't look at someone's record, how can you make an intelligent choice?

Second, the LIV as passed by Congress during Clinton's term wouldn't have hamstrung them at all. If Congress tired of it, they could have voted it out of existence. They can repeal federal legislation almost as easily as they can create it. That's why it wasn't an unconstitutional measure; they volunteered the power to the executive, and as I recall, they had a sunset provision and would have to have renewed it to keep it in force.

Posted by swabjockey05 | June 21, 2007 6:09 AM

Thanks Capt E.

To Anthony, Adjoran and the rest of you saps fawning over Rudy "courageously" defending the Constitution. You guys amaze me.

Where in the Constitution does your Hero Rudy find the authority to force the rest of us to bail out NYC’s socialism?

Posted by quickjustice | June 21, 2007 6:48 AM

Giuliani has publicly said that when he was mayor of NYC, he filed this lawsuit in the interests of the city. The suit succeeded. As Giuliani explains, defending the interests of the city was his job at that time.

He's now running for president. That's a different job, with a different constituency. Giuliani is sophisticated enough to understand this. So are CQ's readers.

Posted by Monkei | June 21, 2007 7:06 AM

Rudy was for it before he was against it ... Captain say it isn't so ... Rudy flip-flopping on an issue?

Posted by syn | June 21, 2007 7:30 AM

Guiliani is a social liberal and his interest is in serving the billionaire collectivist club, he may be running for President but he will not ignore his membership duties.

Guiliani cross-dresses for a reason, he never would have been mayor of NYC without his wealthy social liberal constituents.

Thing is if Guiliani does garner the nomination all his collectivist billionaire friends living in rent stabilized mansions on Central Park west, south and east while maintaining lavish mansions out in the Hamptons will turn against him divulging all the dirty deeds he did to keep the collective billionaire club in the lifestyle of which they are accustomed.

Posted by quickjustice | June 21, 2007 8:32 AM

I'm a New Yorker, I'm not in Rudy's pay, and I witnessed Giuliani in action up close.

Rudy's a hawk who well understands the need to fight the ideology that caused 9/11.

Given the courage it took to confront the radical leftists who controlled, and were ruining, NYC, Giuliani is unsurpassed for political courage among the current contenders. Among GOP candidates, John McCain also dominates in the category of personal courage.

Giuliani also was opportunistic, resourceful, and Machiavellian in accomplishing his policy goals as mayor. Those included crime reduction and reversing the downward spiral of more and more New Yorkers into welfare dependency.

Some of Giuliani's allies were the "Giuliani Democrats", who understood that saving the city from impending destruction was a much higher priority than nitpicking social issues. Rudy chose not to fight on the social issues, because the great early battles lay elsewhere.

He won those battles because he has a courageous heart, and the guile to outwit the treeacherous, radical left. That's remarkable, as is Giuliani.

Posted by swabjockey05 | June 21, 2007 8:54 AM

So you want to lionize Rudy for being "Machiavellian and opportunistic"...it's a free country.

As for his performance at 9/11? Was he a good leader? Sure...but if you think about it, what did he do (about 9/11) that 85% of the CQ readers wouldn't have done?

You can carry his water if you want to...but give it up if you think you can make me help you do it.

Posted by SSG Fuzzy | June 21, 2007 9:11 AM

Among GOP candidates, John McCain also dominates in the category of personal courage.

Wow, the only courage McCain has shown is in consistently stabbing Bush and conservatives in the back! It takes a lot of courage to be the "Maverick", getting all that nice press attention and praise, while making deals with Kennedy and Feingold!

Posted by Monkei | June 21, 2007 11:53 AM

Wow, the only courage McCain has shown is in consistently stabbing Bush and conservatives in the back! It takes a lot of courage to be the "Maverick

That was the OLD McCain, the straight shooting bus riding maverick when he actually was such ... now he is just another Bush buddy hitching his wagons up for the evangelical votes.

Posted by quickjustice | June 21, 2007 12:07 PM

Rudy didn't just pontificate. He went out and won. And yes, he used machiavellian tactics at times, and seized opportunities as they presented themselves. In other words, Rudy didn't just talk. He acted, and he acted successfully.

Rudy narrowly escaped death several times on 9/11, because he rushed to the scene. Do I detect envy in those snarky comments of yours? Are you trolling for Mrs. Clinton, perhaps, who falsely claimed that Chelsea had been "jogging around the Towers" just prior to the attacks? Pretty pathetic stuff.

I won't be voting for McCain, but I'm a little surprised that you're impugning his personal courage.

From Wikipedia:

"The Saints squadron and its parent Air Wing 16 suffered the greatest loss rate of any Navy flying unit during the entire Vietnam War. These heavy losses have been attributed to the perilous missions assigned to the squadron and the aggressiveness of its aviators.

On October 26, 1967, McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile, landing in North Vietnam's Truc Bach Lake, near Hanoi. McCain broke both arms and a leg after ejecting from his plane. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him, spat on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by North Vietnamese soldiers, who crushed his shoulder with the butt of a rifle and bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the "Hanoi Hilton".

Once McCain arrived at the prison, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.

When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to return home. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation due to his belief in the principle of "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. Interview with McCain on April 24, 1974, after his return home.

McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message as a result of rigorous torture methods, which to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head. According to McCain, signing the propaganda message is something he most regrets during his time as a POW. After McCain signed the statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.

McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years, mostly in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton", and was finally released from captivity in 1973, having been a POW for almost an extra five years due to his earlier refusal to accept an out-of-sequence repatriation offer. McCain was reinstated to flight status and became Commanding Officer of the VA-174 Hellrazors, the East Coast A-7 Corsair II Navy training squadron."

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | June 21, 2007 12:19 PM

Ed:

Second, the LIV as passed by Congress during Clinton's term wouldn't have hamstrung them at all. If Congress tired of it, they could have voted it out of existence. They can repeal federal legislation almost as easily as they can create it. That's why it wasn't an unconstitutional measure; they volunteered the power to the executive, and as I recall, they had a sunset provision and would have to have renewed it to keep it in force.

The question in my mind was whether they could do this in the first place. I don't believe the Constitution allows the congress even to temporarily grant the presidency to rewrite budget legislation. He has to veto it, sign it, or let it come into force without his signature. It's granting the Executive Branch a Legislative function, sunset provision or no.

This is why I think Rudy is on solid ground when he suggests a constitutional amendment to create a LIV.

(As for you former point, I hope you don't think I was accusing you of playing "gotcha" games. Far from it.)

Posted by LarryD | June 21, 2007 1:42 PM

The Line Item Veto is a poor substitute for the Impoundment Power that Congress took away from the President back in 1979.

The Impoundment Power rises out of the fact that, while the Constitution requires Congressional Authorization and Allocation of any funds before the Executive can spend them, no where does it require the Executive to spend all funds.

And that is what Congress changed, by statute, in 1979. And they could change it back any time they want, but they don't really want to.

Me, I want to make the Impoundment Power explicit, so Congress can't easily take it away; I grant that we now have to address the issue of earmarks, somehow.

Posted by Henry Heavner | June 21, 2007 2:15 PM

Giuliani has publicly said that when he was mayor of NYC, he filed this lawsuit in the interests of the city. The suit succeeded. As Giuliani explains, defending the interests of the city was his job at that time.

Americans put the country's interests over the interests of their city. Americans don't go to court to keep the pork flowing.

Posted by swabjockey05 | June 21, 2007 4:35 PM

Henry, Absolutely right.

But if you listen to these guys, Rudy is some kind of hero of the Constitution...they're probably shysters too. Why is it that most lawyers think so highly of themselves...is it because they don’t have to soil their hands?

Posted by quickjustice | June 21, 2007 9:23 PM

Kim Strassel, whom I've met, is an excellent reporter. She nonetheless omitted mention of Giuliani's unsuccessful effort to privitize two of New York City's eleven wasteful and inefficient publicly-owned hospitals ("painful change", in her words) before resorting to the courts.

Giuliani was facing a massive budget gap he inherited, and tried to privitize two of the city's publicly owned hospitals, which were a big part of the budget problem. He was unsuccessful in the face of opposition from the city's health care unions, who stood to lose jobs in such a selloff. Those unions are extremely powerful in NYC.

That left Giuliani with a massive budget gap. The federal formula for Medicaid gave Arkansas 75 cents of every Medicaid dollar from Washington, while New York got only 50 cents. Federal funding could help fill the gap, and Giuliani went after it with the litigation. He won in the U.S. Supreme Court, and portrayed it as a great victory. Wouldn't you?

Posted by swabjockey05 | June 22, 2007 9:53 AM

A "great victory" would have been if he got New Yorkers out of paying into the Ponzi scheme in the first place. As if NYC doesn't get her fair share of the Federal pork? In reality, I’ll bet Rudy (like most Socialists) loves Ponzi schemes.

You can trumpet Rudy's mantle of "Protector of the Constitution" all you want...I for one, am not buying it but I'll laugh in your face. Don't worry, though... I'm not threat to you. I'm not a Republican. My vote won't "count".