How many of you would like the Line Item Veto for the President?

Question

The recent proposal is for a line item veto power that congress would be required to vote on each item and congress could override the veto with a 50% majority.

Personally I like the idea. It is basically the president pointing at a peice and going " Are you sure you want this measure".

My opinion is that a minority in congress should have similar abilities to force a line item vote as well. Our representatives are getting to use to spending tax money however they want.

Answer 1

I'm absolutely in favor of it. There is no reason why a law should be tied together with some totally unrelated pork barrel project. By the same token congress must be very careful not to pass a bill that they feel requires all elements to be law or none at all. I can't think of a good example right now but I can foresee the possibility of this happening...where an all or nothing deal is the only acceptable result....possibly in appropriations where you are voting on spending for some project and if all the elements of the project aren't passed then the money would be wasted.


ascarta2 wording can't be changed around like that. contained within bills are item numbers. a line item veto gives the president the authorization to veto one item and sign the bill into law...he could not change the wording on other items.

Answer 2

In favor but won't pass. Remember pork is the way congressmen and women equalize federal spending from the larger and needier states to make sure that at least the major portion of the tax money they contribute returns home to their state, even if the spending is pretty unnecessary. The alternative would be major projects in New York and California funded by taxes in Iowa and Mississippi. This is already unbalanced. Pork tries to balance it, and yes that does result in more spending than necessary. If along with line item veto each state was limited to the amount of fed money they could receive say 90 to 105 percent of their contribution, then would be a good idea. Meanwhile this is how it is done.

Answer 3

There shouldn't be a line item veto. The president does not have the power to pick and choose what parts of a bill or act he can sign into law or enforce. Congress makes legislation and the President either has to sign the whole bill or veto the whole bill. Otherwise, Congress would pass a bill and the President would take out what he does not like and sign what he approves of and that, in effect, would make him a legislator.

Answer 4

I sure do. The GOP controlled Congress and gave it when Clinton was president, only to have it ruled unconstitutional. There is no other way, it appears, to get spending under control than to give the executive a bit more power on vetoing something less than the entire bill.

Answer 5

No matter how much I would love to have that, Eskimo is 100% right. The Congress can send legislation to the president and he can either sign it or not in it's entirety.

The congress is trying to just pass of it's responsibilities AGAIN so they do not have to answer for it later in life. I think we should keep it where it belongs and force the Legislators to do it right the first time and hold them accountable!

Answer 6

one problem with the line item veto you can even remove a word or two. you can change a law to be the exact opposite by doing this, just think of removing the word "not" or something like that out of a law. now instead of the law saying you cant do a thing it says you can do a thing.

Answer 7

I wish voters had line item veto to eliminate crooked or ineffective politicians

Answer 8

I'm totally in favor of it, unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional about twenty years ago

Answer 9

it would be a could tool to use in reduction of pork barrel spending

Answer 10

I am totally for it... more credible laws, bills, etc. would be passed without all the pork!!