From the people who brought you
Medicare Part D and the so-called
Deficit Reduction Act (and tried to bring you the infamous
Enzi Bill), here's yet
another bad idea: the
Stop Over-Spending Act of 2006 (
S. 3521), a.k.a. the
SOS Bill.
This is a very dangerous bill that is moving stealthily through Congress this summer. Among other things, the SOS bill would give President Bush even more power by providing him with a line-item veto over future healthcare and other domestic spending increases. By up-ending the congresssional budget process, this bill could also bring about drastic cuts to virtually all entitlement programs--or even their elimination--with little congressional debate.
If you just can't wait to take action, here's a link to our action alert. Otherwise, make the jump.
Here are some abbreviated "hightlights" of this disastrous piece of legislation (summarized from our
fact sheet):
- Line-Item Veto: The bill would grant the President a line-item veto that, as written in the bill, could be used to eliminate entire programs.
- Automatic Cuts if the Deficit Is Not Reduced: The bill sets hard and unrealistic targets for reducing the deficit. If the deficit doesn’t shrink to meet those targets, Medicare, Medicaid, and every other entitlement program (except Social Security) would be hit with an across-the-board cut.
- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security "Solvency" Commission: The bill creates a commission to look at the long-term “solvency” of these programs. The definitions of "solvency" is unrelated to how these programs are financed, have a marked ideological tilt, and could not be met without harsh changes. To reach “solvency” under this bill, Congress would have to slash Medicaid by 22 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2042. Achieving "solvency" for Medicare would mean massive increases over time in the premiums, deductibles, and co-payments, among other draconian measures.
- “Sunset” Commission: The bill creates a commission that would make recommendations to cancel or reshape virtually any federal program.
- Upside-Down “Pay as you Go”: The bill prohibits Congress from increasing spending in domestic programs unless it pays for the new spending by cutting other “entitlement” programs elsewhere. New tax cuts, however, would not have to be paid for.
As the most politically viable piece of the bill, the line-item veto provision is sure to become the cornerstone of any bill that reaches the Senate floor. In its very detailed analysis of the bill, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities zeroes in on why this version of the line-item veto is so troubling (summarized from their analysis):
- Give the President up to one year after a bill is enacted to propose the cancellation of items in it. By contrast, the 1996 line-item-veto legislation (which the Supreme Court subsequently struck down for other reasons) gave the President 5 days after a bill’s enactment to propose vetoes, and the House Budget Committee’s bill gives the President 45 days.
- Enable the President to cancel funding for programs unilaterally even when Congress has disapproved his vetoes.
- Allow the President to package items from different pieces of legislation (including both appropriations bills and bills dealing with mandatory programs) into a single veto package, and Congress would be required to vote on the package without being allowed to amend it. Congress would have to vote up-or-down on the package as a whole exactly as the President presented it, using fast-track procedures.
- The Gregg line-item-veto proposal provides for highly disparate (and inequitable) treatment of entitlement expansions and tax cuts. The President would be able to propose a veto of any entitlement increase, even including improvements in Social Security. He would be barred, however, from submitting vetoes of new tax cuts — including special-interest tax loopholes — unless they were specifically classified as “targeted tax benefits” by the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation.
<snip>
In other words, entitlement expansions — such as, for example, a measure to extend health care coverage to more uninsured children — would be subject to a line item veto if a President so chose, but the vast preponderance of new tax breaks for wealthy investors and corporations would be shielded from the line item veto.
In short, this is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation. It would hand a president with an already expansive view of executive power even more leverage over the legislative process. It would jeopardize funding for critical programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunch, aid for low-income Americans, veterans, and many others. And it would shield tax cuts for the very wealthy from any fiscal discipline while placing the burden of deficit reduction on average Americans.
We'll keep up posted on this issue, but in the meantime you can take action now through our website.
PS--make sure to read nyceve's impassioned diary on this issue. If you search for "SOS bill" on Google, it's the top result. Go Eve!