Why Obama issues empty veto threats
By Brian Hughes | September 14, 2014 | 5:00 am
White House officials say the administration should explain where the president stands on...
Dozens of times this year, the White House has threatened to veto a Republican bill that everyone knew would never reach the president's desk.
But if the fall elections go as poorly for Democrats as expected, that could change very soon.
On subjects as different as healthcare, jobs, taxes and environmental regulations, President Obama has put out official notice that he would veto House Republican bills up for consideration.
But in every single case, the real veto was wielded by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has frequently kept the bills from even coming up for a vote. Nearly six years into his presidency, Obama has vetoed only two bills.
Still, the White House sees veto threats as an effective political tool.
For the White House, the veto threat is used in much the same way as warnings about Republicans impeaching the president or shutting down the government: to shame Republicans for their positions and fire up the liberal base.
“The threat of vetoes, as well as the threat of executive orders, are both about putting a stake in the ground and looking as if you’re moving toward the idea of governing,” said Linda P. Schacht, a press official in President Jimmy Carter's White House who now teaches political communications at Lipscomb University.
“Even the appearance of moving to do something is part of the calculation,” she added.
In recent years, the bark of a veto has been worse than it's bite. President George W. Bush issued just 12 vetoes and Bill Clinton just 37.
By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 635 vetoes; Grover Cleveland, 584; and Harry Truman, 250.
One major reason for the difference: It's impossible to veto legislation that doesn't get out of Congress. And in a divided Congress, especially of late, one chamber serves as an effective veto against the other.
White House officials defend the veto threats, saying the administration has the responsibility to explain where the president stands on legislation, even if it has no chance of passing.
“The veto threat carries weight to it,” said one senior administration official. “The president would prefer not to issue any veto threats. He would rather sign laws. But when legislation is bad for the American people, he'll make his voice heard."
Obamacare, more than any other issue, shows how the veto-threat theater has evolved under this president.
Republicans have held more than 50 votes to scrap parts of the president’s signature health law. And the White House has repeatedly issued veto threats, even as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., keeps such legislation from reaching the floor of the upper chamber.
Most recently, the GOP-led House passed a bill that would allow consumers to keep healthcare plans that don't meet Obamacare standards.
“If the president were presented with H.R. 3522, he would veto it,” the Office of Management and Budget warned last week.
“Rather than refighting old political battles to sabotage the healthcare law, the Congress should work with the administration to improve the law and move forward,” the statement read.
The bill will now inevitably collect dust in the Senate, but the White House used the opportunity to frame Republicans as more interested in scoring political points than effective healthcare policy.
That pattern will play out until the end of Obama's second term unless Democrats lose the Senate in November. Then Obama would have to choose whether to follow the Bush and Clinton path of saving the veto as a weapon to fend off bills passed by an opposition Congress.
In the meantime, the veto threat will contain more symbolic than practical importance.
“The first line of many fundraisers is, ‘Do you know what the other party is trying to do?'” Schacht, the former Carter press official, observed. “It’s red meat."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-obama-issues-empty-veto-threats/article/2553322
