[Westy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060306/pl_nm/bush_veto_dc

Seems like a bad idea, no matter who is in the whitehouse. I wonder if Bush is testing the waters now that he has two buddies in the Supreme Court?

 

[jimmydean]

It's not the worst of ideas though. To toss out a bill due to one or two things can take forever to correct. So if a bill is more than half right with a few corrections, then it might be a good option.

 

[Connundrum1]

Jimmy Dean, your right but this works the other way also, if there are a few good things (relatively) in a bill, Bush can veto just those and pass what he likes. thats the whole debate.

 

[reflux]

Didn't Clinton's budget balancing act, the one that Bush made a point to not renew, accomplish the same goal?

I am hard-pressed to trust the President to use a line item veto in the best interests of the budget when every action to date has contradicted such interests. But that is off-topic, as to whether or not it's constitutional, I doubt it.

 

[jimmydean]

I think he has lost the "Veto" rubber stamp and just doesn't want anyone to know.

 

[Westy]

A similar law in '98 was deemed unconstitutional. I see this more of a challenge to see what the new supreme court will allow as far as executive power goes than a concern for limiting spending. At this point Bush still has enough pull with his party that he could announce that he would veto a spending bill if it contained XXXX.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I don't see it as a bad idea - too many small, unrelated things get tucked into a large bill so representatives can look good to their home state for looking after "their" interests - things that maybe shouldn't be coming out of tax payer dollars, or should be presented in a more individualistic and appropriate bill.

 

[LordOpie]

I don't see it as a bad idea - too many small, unrelated things get tucked into a large bill so representatives can look good to their home state for looking after "their" interests - things that maybe shouldn't be coming out of tax payer dollars, or should be presented in a more individualistic and appropriate bill.

true, but how many of those pet projects are actually positive and contribute to the betterment of society? And how many would've gotten signed off on if they did bundle them?

Regardless, line-item is too much power for ANY president. That's why we have the system we do.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I agree. No line item for me.

 

[Westy]

If it were about killing pork barrel projects how come Bush, or Clinton (same thing was attempted 8 years ago) never really raised an eyebrow about such things. It is not like the president has been fighting a losing battle to remove things. I'd lean more towards supporting it if any real attempt had been made to stop stupid spending. I see it more as getting the ability to do things like kill funding to national parks, hell make those damn hippy park rangers in the green polyester pants pay for themselves by selling lumber/mineral rights.

 

[caputo1989]

Its a bad thing because the process for bill/amendment passing will become too freequent and the government would gain too much power.

 

[LordOpie]

I see it more as getting the ability to do things like kill funding to national parks, hell make those damn hippy park rangers in the green polyester pants pay for themselves by selling lumber/mineral rights.

exactly.