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 4 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
oretically prevent wasteful spending by vetoing an entire spending bill and sending it back to Congress to reconsider. Both Houses of Congress must then come up with a twothirds nuyority to override his veto and allow the spending.
The drawback to this approach is that Congress is usually ■-smart enough to tie wasteful spending to bills it knows the president considers important. That way he — and taxpayers — have to swallow the bad to get the “good. ”
In 1987, for example, President Reagan had to either accept a huge resolution containing all federal spending or allow the government to shut down. He had little choice but to acquiesce to the spending.
That’s why the legislative lineitem veto is so important. The president could reduce or delete wasteful spending from appropriations bills, sending it back to Congress while accepting the rest of the spending. Supporters would then have to put their mouth where taxpayers’ money is by voting on the spending on its own merits, rather than burying it deep in a huge appropriations bill that they know the president will have to approve.
If a majority approved the contested spending, the president could still veto it. In that case, supporters would have to come up with twothirds of the members of botlj, the
93.8%