Vetoes

' The vast majority of his vetoes as president were for pensions for individual Civil War veterans. It is nearly impossible to imagine a president today refusing to authorize a pension for a supposed war hero. But as Cleveland wrote in one veto message:

“I am by no means insensible to that influence which leads the judgment toward the allowance of every claim alleged to be founded upon patriotic service in the nation's cause; and yet I neither believe it to be a duty nor a kindness to the worthy citizens for whose benefit our scheme of pensions was provided to permit the diversion of the nation's bounty to objects not within its scope and purpose.”

There was a general pension law already in effect which granted pensions to veterans disabled by service in the Civil War or the dependents of soldiers killed. However, Congressman found an easy way to buy support by passing individual pensions for constituents from their district. One veteran congressman laid out their logic, "You need not worry, you cannot very well make a mistake allowing liberal pensions to the soldier boys. The money will get back into the Treasury very soon." One veto message shows the lack of care with which these pensions were handed out.

“A sufficient reason for the return of the particular bill now under consideration is found in the fact that it provides that the name of Andrew J. Hill be placed upon the pension roll, while the records of the Pension Bureau, as well as a medical certificate made a part of the committee's report, disclose that the correct name of the intended beneficiary is Alfred J. Hill.”

Cleveland detailed in veto after veto that the claims for many of these pensions were flatly fraudulent. Old soldiers found it all too easy to blame their present maladies on some incident that had supposedly happened 20 years previous during the war. Take for instance, one of the more egregious examples of such fraud:

“(T)he following statement from his certificate of discharge, if trustworthy, sheds some light upon the kind of debility with which he was afflicted:

'This man has been in this hospital for the past eight months. We do not believe him sick, or that he has been sick, but completely worthless. He is obese and a malingerer to such an extent that he is almost an imbecile—worthlessness, obesity, and imbecility and laziness. He is totally unfit for the Invalid Corps or for any other military duty.

I do not regard it at all strange that this claimant, encouraged by the ease with which special acts are passed, seeks relief through such means, after his application, filed in the Pension Bureau nearly twenty years after his discharge, had been rejected.

Of the four comrades who make affidavit in support of his claim, two of them are recorded as deserters.'”

Or the case of one Mr. Carroll who received a pension from Congress on the testimony of a Mr. Perkins that they were wounded at the same time in the service of their country.

“After an investigation made at that time by a special examiner, he reported that Perkins and Carroll had collected a number of men together, who made their headquarters at the home of Carroll's mother and were engaged in plundering the neighborhood, and that on account of their depredations they were hunted down by home guards and shot at the time they stated.”

A President of the United States so committed to protecting the taxpayers he would be personally involved in investigating and vetoing singular pensions? Imagine that.

Cleveland also vetoed an expansion of the general pension law on the grounds that it had a broader scope than any previous pension and that it was just too expensive.

“While cost should not be set against a patriotic duty or the recognition of a right, still when a measure proposed is based upon generosity or motives of charity it is not amiss to meditate somewhat upon the expense which it involves. Experience has demonstrated, I believe, that all estimates concerning the probable future cost of a pension list are uncertain and unreliable and always fall far below actual realization." '

- from How Grover Cleveland Wielded the Veto Power to Curb the Growth of Government - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

 

President Cleveland's veto message of February 16, 1887:

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and Representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

GROVER CLEVELAND

- from Veto Message | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

 

Concerning the "line item" veto, President Cleveland did not need such a "crutch" to veto bills.

"The courage to say “no” under pressure is a hallmark of sturdy character. For a U.S. president, one test of this courage is the willingness to veto bad bills— bills that spend too much money or that contradict Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. In that test of character, perhaps no president passed more convincingly than Grover Cleveland (1837–1908), America’s 22nd president.

During Cleveland’s first term (1885–1889), he vetoed 414 bills, more than twice the total vetoed by all previous presidents. The reason for the onslaught of vetoes was that Congress, in the 1880s and 1890s, decided to give taxpayer dollars to various special interests in return for votes. Cleveland drew a line in the sand and said “no” to subsidy grabs."

- "Grover Cleveland: The Veto President" folsom0404.pdf (fee-misc.s3.amazonaws.com)

 

As Gene Healy, in an article in 2010 when the national debt was WAY smaller than it is today, accurately described the idea of the line item veto, it would be a "mere bandage on the body politics' sucking chest wound." (Line-Item Veto Is No Quick-Fix | Cato Institute)

 

Trying to adhere to the U.S. Constitution on a consistent basis is hard to do and there will be LOTS of folks opposing anyone who tries to do so. As we see quite clearly in our own day, people want the federal government to give them what they want or ban this or subsidize that, even if it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do so. And there are LOTS of politicians on the Left and the Right who are quite willing to fulfill their wishes.

It should also be noted that Grover Cleveland won a second term of office in 1892.

 

So what? There have been LOTS of non-Republican Party and non-Democratic Party candidates for president on the general ballot in United States history.

If the two major parties don't like losing, then they should nominate better candidates.

 

Good!

 

Cleveland got "clean" bills, before him so he didn't need a line item. In 2023, vetoable items are buried in unrelated bills.

 

Why do you think it is not good? Do you want only one of the major party candidates to always win?

No.

 

I oppose the line item veto because it makes compromise with the other party unnecessary.

The party with the POTUS could agree to everything the other party wants, to get everything they want, only to have POTUS veto out everything the other party wanted out of the bill.

Essentially, the party with POTUS has total control over legislation no matter who has majority in house or senate.

peace to you

 

The Congress definitely needs to reform its budgeting process so that only single issue bills are voted on.

It's been a problem for a LONG Time, Check out this State of the Union speech by Ronald Reagan in January 1988, starting about the 15:50 mark:

 

Because 1/2 the country thinks there is massive corruption in every election when all you have to do is mark one candidate.

The more complicated the system, the more likely to have fraud or appearance of fraud.

peace to you

 

I think he should. Otherwise there is no power in his position to be part of legislating laws, which is part of his executive function.