JUSTIFICATION: Many congressional bills contain blatant special interest funding that is a prime cause of uncontrolled government spending. The line item veto gives the President both the authority and the responsibility to act in the national interest. The president will be held accountable by the voters for failure to veto wasteful government expenditures.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT: Presidental approval of bills that include line item vetos of specific provisions shall be returned to Congress for possible further action within 15 days. Any Senator or Representative may request a line item veto overide vote in their respective house and that vote must be taken within one week of their request. Congress may overide individual line items vetoed by the President by simple majority vote in both houses of Congress. Each override vote must be on a roll call vote on a single line item vetoed by the President so that individual Congressmen's votes are registered (no voice voting). Following a congressional overide of one or more line item vetos in a particular bill, the entire bill would be returned to the President. The President could then sign the bill with the overidden line item vetos or he could veto the entire bill. A presidental veto of an entire bill would require the current 2/3 vote of both houses to overide. Such an overide would enact the bill without the specific line item vetos previously overidden by Congress, but including any line item vetos not overidden by congress when the bill was returned to the President.

JUSTIFICATION: A simple line item veto would be an excessive shift of power to the President. The President could use it as much for bad purposes as for good....it could be quite a lever. With even one congressmen's request, this amendment will require a roll call vote ( and show how individual Congressmen vote....."in the light of day!") on individual items vetoed by the President.

AUTHOR: Quentin J. Lewis EMAIL: bigqueue@tiac.com

JUSTIFICATION: Many congressional bills contain riders that have no relation to the basic bill. Many of these provisions represent unjustified expenditures. Requiring congress to consider each topic in its entirety would eliminate many of these wasteful expenditures.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: The strengths of government are order and stability and the weaknesses of government are inflexibility and inefficiency. Therefore government organizations should maintain a core administrative function while subcontracting most of the actual work to private sector organizations.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: An annual audit is an important private sector financial control. The GAO does a good job, but the size of the federal government and the GAO's lack of success in curbing runaway spending warrants more independent financial reviews.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: The old saying about "give a man a fish etc" applies to our approach to foreign aid. Giving people money will never produce self sufficiency. However guaranteed purchases of produce from the country in place of aid would help build their economy.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: A budget would be a helpful tool to give congress a backbone to curb government spending. The requirement for a 2/3 vote to increase spending would help keep the expenditures in each area to the budgeted amount.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: A healthy economy requires a balance between government expenditures and private sector economic activity. A balanced budget amendment only controls the size of the national debt and not the size of government. However a GNP spending limit provides a direct control on the level of spending that increases as the economy grows. Excess spending during a recession can be a useful fiscal tool, but only if the government then runs a surplus during period of rapid growth.

JUSTIFICATION: Unfunded federal mandates enable the federal government to effectively raise state and local tax rates without popular conscent. This is a direct violation "no taxation without representation" which is a cornerstone of America's social contract. The federal government should be free to pass laws they feel are necessary; however the funds to impliment those laws must also be approved concurrently.

AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: Much of the stimulus for government spending comes from the desire of elected representatives to promote the economic wellbeing of their constituents ( and their own chances for reelection) by funneling as much federal money to their districts or states as possible. The current "grab as much as you can" system is an invition to excessive and irresponsible federal government spending.

The proposed uniform spending restriction would 1) encourage each congressman to wisely spend his/her guaranteed 80% of average and would effectively prevent the majority party or influential congressmen from obtaining more than 125% of average. The 2/3 vote option would allow for exceptions that were clearly in the national interest.

Author: Robert Bruce Moneymaker Email: RMNYMKR@OMNI.SPARKS.NV.US