The Congressional and Executive Line-Item Committee
U. S. Government
The founding fathers were afraid of any entity in the new government becoming too much like the monarchs they had fled from. For that reason there are limitations built into the United States Constitution that give each branch of government some control over the other branches. The United States system of government is based on a set of checks and balances that keep one branch or one person from becoming too powerful. It divides the powers of the federal government between the Congress, the President and the Federal Courts. One of the powers of the President is to exercise the veto over bills passed by Congress. This …show more content…
The Congress could have approval over the four Executive appointees, and the President could have approval over the four Congressional appointees. It could be called the Congressional and Executive Line-Item Committee (CELIC). Every budget would have to be finally cleared through this committee and then returned to the Legislature for final approval with cuts, and then to the President’s desk for final approval with cuts. This would maintain the balance of power, provide continued checks and balances and a slimmer, less bloated budget. The members of the Committee should all have budget and economic experience to gain approval by the Congress and the President. This keeps a line-item veto on the table but out of the hands of any one division of the government. The Chairman of this committee could be The Chairman of the Federal Reserve or some other high-profile individual known for an in depth knowledge of financial matters. This would leave the power of both the President and the Congress in its present proportion and would insure that the President does not have too much power over government spending in relation to Congress. It also does not go against the Presentment Clause and might withstand challenges before the Supreme Court. Obviously the President would have some sway over those he appointed, but then again so would the Congress. In truth, the Committee would most likely function in an independent manner and in the best interest of the country, letting stand those expenditures that are fair and just, and eliminating the bridges to nowhere that have caused such outcries for reasonable expenditures. Finally, the bipartisan nature of the Committee should calm any concerns about ideological imbalance in the budgetary