Feingold, Ryan ask Obama to endorse line-item veto bill

Two bipartisan lawmakers wrote President Barack Obama on Friday asking that he support their legislation to create a presidential line-item veto on earmark spending.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that their legislation would tamp down discretionary spending on local projects and help the president fulfill his pledge for greater transparency.

"With the enormous budget challenges facing our Nation, it has never been more more necessary to to limit this abusive practice," the Wisconsin lawmakers wrote in a letter. "We believe that this tool will provide you with the means to both reduce earmarks, as well as promote transparency in the earmark process by highlighting egregious requests."

The letter comes at a time when the Obama administration is exploring ways to reduce the federal deficit and debt.

Feingold and Ryan say in the letter that two large appropriations bills contained a total of $10.7 billion in earmark spending, a sum they is an unacceptable example of "wasteful spending."

Earmarks, which are typically used to fund local projects in lawmakers' districts, have long been a scourge of several members of Congress who say that they are wasteful and unethical.

But earmark spending only comprises a small percentage of the federal budget and reducing them would likely do little to cut into the federal deficit, which rose to $1.4 trillion in 2009.

The Wisconsin lawmaker's proposal would allow the president to veto individual earmarks, tax breaks and tariff benefits. The bill would expire in 2014, giving lawmakers a chance to evaluate the bill under different administrations before deciding to extend it or let it die.

The bill would also ensure that the president would get "an up or down vote" when he decides to cancel an earmark, thereby preserving Congress' constitutional authority over spending. 

Congress first passed a bill approving line-item veto power for President Bill Clinton in 1996, but shortly thereafter it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court.

---