Sorry, I got on a roll. This response turned out longer than I intended it to be.
but still a slap in the face of the legislative process.
Why? The Prexy doesn't want to take the heat for a direct veto. OK. Accuse him of cowardice. But Congress knows full well he can do this.
By "heat" do you mean that the Congress passed a bill that had popular support and the Pres doesn't want to be criticized that he's ignored the will of the people as implemented by Congress?
Within my political awareness lifetime, I've never known a President that couldn't spin himself out of that one. Plus political memories are short, e.g., name 5 specific bills that Clinton vetoed during his last year in office...without looking them up of course <s>.
IMO, pocket vetoes have a more specific purpose. If the Pres wants to veto a bill, the very first thing the Administration assesses is whether it's likely the Senate will override the veto. [Which implies there is strong support for the bill in the Senate.] If the White House believes that the veto would be overwritten, what would be the point of the veto? A statement of "principals"? I don't think so. Under such circumstances, the Prez would simply stick the bill in his pocket. In that manner, the Prez can make sure that the bill is not enacted, there is less awareness that the Pres has "vetoed" a bill, and he [someday he/she] avoids the Senate overriding the veto. It's a procedural manuevre.
As I said and you restated, it's Constitutional, he has the authority to do it, the Congress knows he can do it; and it's an indication of how much the Pres respects the legislative process.
There's only 13 Appropriations Bills per year; everything else is a supplemental.
Actually, where's this 13 come from? I thought there was a bill for the federal budget, then wish lists for special interests and congresscritters.
The President's budget submittal, while one budget, consists of 13 appropriations bills. Each bill is handled separately in Congress, in committe, etc., and each one is voted on and ultimately signed by the President separately. There is the DoD Appropriations Bill, the NASA Appropiations Bill, the FAA Appropriations Bill, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, Transportation Bill , Justice, etc. There are separate Appropriations Bills for the Judicial Branch, and the Legislative Branch as well which are included within the President's proposed budget. But each one is a separate and distinct legislative action. For trivia on the Legislative Appropriations Bill, see: house.gov
The number of appropriations bills can vary over time, e.g., kill a cabinet position and you'll kill an appropriations bill. It's a bit like remembering the 7 dwarfs. There's always one or two that you can't quite remember, or don't get the name just right. I did a very quick check on the web for "the list", I didn't get an immediate hit, that's all the search for precise number was worth to me.
The earmarks or wish list, get stuck into an appropriation bill during committee. Hey, if they were a separate appropriations bill, the Pres would pocket veto that baby every time.
But we do tend to speak about the "President's budget" as if it was one legislative piece. It's actually 13 legislative pieces with one theme, sic the budget.
For those that have been brainwashed by the "DOA" slogan. One only has to look historically at what goes into Congress and what comes out. Very minor differences, in a $2 Trillion budget, a few billion is noise. Where people often get confused, is when the Federal outlays are compared to the President's Budget submittal, and they assume [or rather are conned] into believing that the Federal outlays are what Congress authorized in response to the President Budget. Take Reagan's very first budget for example. Congress approved Reagan's budget lock stock and barrel, not one change, every line item went in as proposed. No earmarks pumped in by committee.
So how did Reagan's first year, then turn into a deficit if Congress approved Reagan's budget. <s> Lot's of stuff happens between when that budget is approved and signed and when the Federal outlays are accounted for. Give me a hurricane and I'll give you an emergency supplemental that isn't reflected in the original budget submittal.
There are also some "elastic" components to the Appropriations Bills. For example, what the government will spend on unemployment benefits is budgetted on what the estimated unemployment numbers will be. Who the hell knows what the actuals will be? So as the unemployment numbers become known, does the White House submit an amendment? Nah, the specific language in Bill takes into account this expected variability and if the unemployment numbers are higher than expected, it's automatically authorized.
Since people typically look at the original budget submittal and compare it to the Federal outlays, it behoves the President to low-ball the budget submittal. And let life take it's course. If you took all of Reagan's budget submittals, added them up. Then took what Congress approved during those years in response to those submittals and added them all up; what you would find is that Congress authorized $28B less than what Reagan submitted. So why would Reagan veto an Appropriations bill[s]?; he wouldn't.
One specific area that is historically low-balled is emergency relief. There will be a hurricane, or earthquake, sets of tornados, planes crashing into building sometime or another during a year, but it's an area that is always underfunded. Congress co-operates with this tactic because it allows them to keep the authorizations total, lower. And everyone knows that no one is going to object when a supplemental comes in.
[Credit given to my wife, for making me aware of this budget tactic, while she was working as a Senate staffer.]
jttmab |
