The idea of a line-item veto sounds good, but, at least in the forms currently being talked about, it gathers too much power into the hands of the executive, which is why the Supremes bounced it some years ago.

I suggest that the President be given authority to line out spending items, but with the provision that Congress must then vote separately on each line-out within 30 days. If the Congress, after considering the broken out legislation, passes it by a 3/5 majority, the law takes effect without the President's signature. Sort of a veto override, but without the 2/3 majority required by the Constitution.

The President takes a risk in being over-ridden but the Congress takes the risk of public exposure of the items lined out by the president.

If the Congress does not act within 30 days from the President's line-out, the lined out items are considered vetoed without the possibility of over-ride by the Congress.

This just might make the Congress and the President a bit more responsive. It also gives the minority party a bigger voice in such controversial line items.

Something to think about, anyway.

Considering President Bush's history of rewarding and punishing those who do and do not support him, a line item veto could also be used as a political tool. Even if Bush does not use the power in this manner, it does not mean that some future President will not use it. I am against it since there is to much potential for abuse.

Never liked the idea of a line item veto. With the wacko we have now, I lkie it even less.

The Supreeme court killed the idea once before, hopefully they would do it again.

A line-item veto in the hands of Bush ?

That would give Bush even more power to control
Congress. Using the famous "carrot & stick"
method, he could seriously damage bills that
help the people, while threatening whoever
doesn't play ball with the Neo-con agenda.

God help us.

-John Austin

I think these are arguments for Congress to fix its own problems. They need to deliver spending bills in a timely fashion, even if it means starting them years in advance. They should limit or remove the use of earmarks.

Giving this president (or any for that matter) more power is not an answer to fixing Congress's procedural defects. They need to fix those themselves.

What a disaster a line item veto under this President would be. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the congress. Indeed, I could see this president vetoing the bulk of pork projects in "blue" states and leaving "red" state pork alone. Also, given this Administration's lack of respect for the law, I would believe this President capable of vetoing spending mandated by law. Talk about redistribution of wealth if this is passed we haven't seen anything yet!

Omigod! A line item veto in the hands of power-hungry Bu$h. What a political tool that would make. Programs for the elderly, working poor, disabled, or the beleaguered middle class could disappear at the stroke of a pen.

Bu$h inherited the largest budget surplus in US history and managed to turn it into the largest budget deficit in US history in record time.

He does not deserve such power as the line item veto nor would he use it appropriately.

We need Bu$h GONE.

Just read that government is buying up all the MRE's and 7.62x39 ammo in the country- Called Larrys Gun Shop in Mobile and told them what I was reading. They confirmed that was true- they had NONE! They also told me that WALMART just stopped selling guns in Mobile, Alabama. Smells like a plan to me. Get what you need now,Folks.
Welcome to the America none of ever thought we'd see. Invest is a little gold, a little silver, and a lot of lead.

A line item veto sounds admirable, but it's only effective in the hands of an honorable leader, and Bush is not that man. Rest assured he'll cut programs that benefit American's to the bone, but he'll continue to feed the sacrificial fires that worship the M.I. Complex. This industrial complex and it's camp-following scavenger industries are breaking the United States plain and simple. Military retirement's along with many higher level government retirement's are far too plush compared to the civilian sector. When was the last time anyone heard of layoff's or outsourcing of U.S., State, or Municipal level jobs. The broken, down-sized, outsourced masses are supporting this parasitic growth known as the U.S. government. Rest assured Bush is not the man to simply "say no" to further government expansion. Under his tenure the U.S. government has virtually ballooned into a taxpayer's worst nightmare. I rest my case.

Carl Nemo, Ridgefield, Wa

Well, Bush has gone after money from our SS, Medicade,Medicare, Ins. co.s schools,horribly dismantled the deficit, for the un- needed, and un- wanted War,You name it he has gone for it, cause he is wealthy let him start donating all the money he has, and all the cronies he has given money to, such as Medical Co.s theres so much wrong it will never be able to be righted again i am so ashamed of the USA for letting him get away with all he has, the spying on US? Now he is taking from our retirement, God help our Children and thiers, what will they do.. We have to get him out of the white house.