Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
ties. Also, a line-item veto by statue or Constitutional amendment should be seriously considered.
There are other immediate remedies that should be considered as well. For example, I support abolishing the annual practice of lumping most of the 13 individual spending bills which Congress must pass each year into one large budget package. This practice provides an opportunity to attach unnecessary spending to the annual budget.
I also support reviving the President’s power to “impound” — that is, refuse to spend — money for programs he believes are unworthy unless the Congress subsequently passes legislation specifically calling for spending on such programs. In 1974 the Congress changed the law to permit the president to impound funds only if the Congress changed the law to simply ignore the President’s action and thereby force the money to be spent on these programs without farther consideration.
If such proposals were adopted, the Congress would have to consider on an individual basis the merits of each program for which funding was impounded by the President. Such scrutiny of individual spending programs would undoubtedly result in budget savings.
It is hard to believe, for example, that the $8 million for schools in Paris discussed above would stand up to the scrutiny of the full House.
Congressional scrutiny is needed for all funding questions if the federal budget deficit is to be reduced.
93.8%