Bush’s ‘dangerous proposal’: the 2006 line-item veto fight and what came next
President George W. Bush’s 2006 line-item veto plan passed the House as H.R. 4890 on June 22, 2006, by a vote of 247 to 172. The Senate never voted on it, so it died when the 109th Congress ended. That November, Democrats won both chambers. Their leaders, including Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), chose not to pursue impeachment, and the 2007 budget fights with the White House were over Iraq war funding. Earmarks, which the post below blamed for runaway spending, were banned in Congress from 2011 and came back in 2021 as Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate. As of November 2026 they are capped at 1% of discretionary spending and posted online by every member who asks for one. No president holds a line-item veto today.
The original post (June 26, 2006)
This opinion post first ran on June 26, 2006, on a Virginia blog that backed Democratic candidates. The text below keeps the author’s argument and credits each claim to the writer. Factual corrections and later events are marked as history.
Richmond, Virginia, June 26, 2006. The writer pointed out that Republicans held the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the writer’s view they also held, “arguably,” the Supreme Court. Even so, the post said, Republican leaders claimed this was not enough to stop federal spending from running out of control. Their answer, in the writer’s words, was to hand more budget power to the President.
The post described the plan as a line-item veto: the power to cut spending out of a bill Congress had already passed. The writer said the idea was to let the President cut wasteful spending, but argued that in practice it would give the President a lever over the whole federal budget. The post imagined a President telling Congress: “Don’t want to support my war? Fine, I’ll cut funding for Medicare.”
Correction for the record. The 2006 bill worked differently from a classic line-item veto. H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, was sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). It would have changed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 so that the President could propose cancelling specific items after signing a bill. Congress would then have to hold a fast, up-or-down vote, and a cut took effect only if both chambers approved it. The bill covered discretionary spending, new mandatory spending and targeted tax breaks, not entitlement spending already on the books. A stronger version, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, did let the President cancel items on his own. The Supreme Court struck it down 6 to 3 in Clinton v. City of New York on June 25, 1998, ruling that it violated the Constitution’s Presentment Clause.
The writer argued that earmarks for pet projects had “exploded” under the Republican majority and that the Iraq war had been costly. With control of both Congress and the White House, the post said, Republicans had all the power they needed to restrain spending if they had wanted to. In the writer’s view, something else was going on.
The post called the proposal a “power grab” for the executive branch. It argued that Bush wanted to protect himself ahead of the Democratic gains the writer expected in the November 2006 midterms.
The writer then laid out what a Democratic Congress might do. The post named impeachment as the most obvious option but noted that many Democrats and nearly all Republicans opposed it, and that many saw it as too divisive and damaging to the political process.
The writer judged it more likely that a Democratic majority would use the power of the purse to rein in the administration, cutting funding for programs the writer called “extreme.” In that scenario, the post said, Bush would become “the ultimate lame duck.”
The post’s final argument was that moving budget control to the President would weaken Congress and could cause a bigger political crisis. If Democrats won both chambers and found that a presidential cancellation power kept them from using the purse strings, the writer argued, moderate Democrats might take a second look at impeachment.
The original post linked to further reading, which readers could find by clicking here.
The full original post was published at The Richmond Democrat.
What actually happened next
The bill passed the House and stopped there. Democrats did win Congress, and the conflict the post predicted happened as funding fights, not impeachment. Later Congresses kept arguing over the same question: how much say a President should have over money Congress has already approved.
| Date | Event | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| June 25, 1998 | Clinton v. City of New York | 1996 Line Item Veto Act struck down, 6 to 3 |
| June 22, 2006 | House vote on H.R. 4890 | Passed 247 to 172 (212 R and 35 D in favor) |
| Late 2006 | Senate takes no floor vote | Bill dies when the 109th Congress ends |
| November 7, 2006 | Midterm elections | Democrats win the House and Senate |
| May 1, 2007 | Bush vetoes H.R. 1591, an Iraq war funding bill with a withdrawal timeline | Congress then passes war funding without the timeline |
| February 8, 2012 | House passes H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act | Passed 254 to 173; dies in the Senate Budget Committee |
| 2011 | House and Senate earmark moratorium takes effect | Earmarks largely disappear from spending bills |
| 2021 | Earmarks return for fiscal 2022 under new names and rules | Community Project Funding and Congressionally Directed Spending |
| July 24, 2025 | President Donald Trump signs the Rescissions Act of 2025 | Cancels $9 billion of about $9.4 billion requested |
| August 28, 2025 | White House sends a “pocket rescission” of nearly $5 billion in foreign aid | GAO says the tactic is unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act |
The impeachment question
The post’s fallback scenario never came about. After the 2006 election, Democratic leaders said impeachment was off the table. The new majority went after Iraq policy through appropriations instead. Bush vetoed the first war funding bill, which included a withdrawal timeline, and Congress did not have the votes to override.
The line-item veto after 2006
Support for a legislative line-item veto crossed party lines over the years. In 2006, 35 House Democrats voted for H.R. 4890. In 2012, H.R. 3521 was co-led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and ranking Democrat Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). It passed the House 254 to 173, with 57 Democrats voting yes, but the Senate never took it up. Critics in both parties argued, as the 2006 post did, that even an expedited-vote version moves power from Congress toward the White House.
Rescissions and impoundment today
There is still no line-item veto, so the President’s formal tool is a rescission request under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Congress has 45 days of continuous session to approve the request or the money must be released. Congress approved the Rescissions Act of 2025, the first such package enacted in decades. The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Management and Budget have disagreed about the later pocket rescission. OMB says the law allows it. GAO says a request sent so close to the end of the fiscal year cannot lawfully let funds expire.
How earmarks work as of November 2026
Earmarks are allowed again, under rules written after the 2011 to 2021 ban. Under these rules the member’s name goes on the request, the request is posted online, and the total is capped.
- A member of the House or Senate gets a funding request from a local government or nonprofit. For-profit companies are not eligible.
- The member posts the request publicly and certifies that neither the member nor their immediate family has a financial interest in it.
- The appropriations subcommittees decide which requests to fund, staying under a combined cap of 1% of discretionary spending.
- Funded projects are listed by name, amount and sponsor in the bill’s report tables. Agencies then pay out the money.
Under the current numbers, the House-passed fiscal 2027 agriculture bill includes 592 Community Project Funding items worth about $604 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. That compares with 509 earmarks worth $643 million in the enacted fiscal 2026 agriculture bill. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation counted 13,380 Senate requests worth $51.97 billion for fiscal 2027. That is far more than the cap allows to be funded.
None of the full-year fiscal 2027 bills has been enacted. The government is running on a continuing resolution, H.R. 6500 (P.L. 119-103), signed in early September 2026, which funds agencies through December 11, 2026. Earmarks in the pending bills take effect only if Congress passes full-year appropriations.
FAQ
Did President Bush ever get a line-item veto?
No. The House passed his proposal as H.R. 4890 in June 2006, but the Senate never held a floor vote, and the bill died at the end of 2006. No President since has held line-item veto power.
Why was the line-item veto ruled unconstitutional?
In Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 let the President change laws on his own. The Constitution requires the President to sign or veto a whole bill. Later “legislative” versions tried to fix this by making Congress vote to approve each cut.
What is the difference between a line-item veto and a rescission?
A classic line-item veto lets the President cancel a spending item on his own. A rescission is a request that Congress cancel money it already approved. The cut happens only if Congress passes a bill within 45 days, as it did with the $9 billion Rescissions Act of 2025.
Are earmarks banned in Congress?
Not anymore. Both chambers stopped earmarks starting in 2011 and brought them back in 2021, with new disclosure rules and a cap of 1% of discretionary spending. The House calls them Community Project Funding and the Senate calls them Congressionally Directed Spending.
Where can you see the earmarks your members of Congress requested?
Every member who asks for one must post the request on their official website. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees publish tables of funded projects with each sponsor’s name. Watchdog groups also gather the requests into searchable lists.
Did Democrats try to impeach Bush after winning Congress in 2006?
No impeachment effort moved forward. Democratic leaders, including incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said impeachment was off the table. The majority used funding bills and oversight hearings to challenge the administration, mainly over Iraq.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service, “Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006: Background and Comparison of Versions” (RL33517)
- Congressional Research Service, “Line Item Veto Act Unconstitutional: Clinton v. City of New York” (98-690)
- Congressional Research Service, “Pocket Rescissions and the Impoundment Control Act” (LSB11373 and LSB11374)
- Congressional Research Service, “Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2027 Appropriations” (R49343)
- Congressional Research Service, “Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2027 (Division A of P.L. 119-103)” (R49353)
- Voteview, 109th Congress House roll call on H.R. 4890
- Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 2012 Roll Call 46 on H.R. 3521
- National Taxpayers Union Foundation, “Tracking FY 2027 Senate Earmark Requests”
- Findlaw, Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
About this article
- Fact-checked before publication.
- Published · Updated
