Does the line-Veto really eliminate Pork Barrel?

Question

Or is it the opposite? enforces the pork barrel waste?

For instance , a bill can contain two opposite lines, Bush can chose the one that "suits" AIPAC against the voters choice, and cross the other line.
AIPAC lobby for a perpetual US presence in IRAQ
The rest of US Voters Oppose that Illegal wars.

Answer 1

As you have pointed it's not just a a Pork Barrel tool, Line Item Veto can be used on two edges, Clinton used it properly , I am sure Two time loser Bush will use it to comfort his false sense of ego.

Answer 2

Well, I consider his sudden desire to cut pork, cut the budget and use a line-item Veto to be a bit untimely and insincere.

If he was serious about these things, he'd have requested the line-Item Veto 6 years ago, and he'd also have vetoed numerous pork-laden bills passed by the GOP Congress. He didn't use his bully pulpit to chastise the GOP spending; it's a tad ingenuous to pretend to care about the spending now.

But I do not like a line-Item Veto. Either veto the bill per the Constitution and tell Congress to cut the pork, or don't. But let's stop with the nonsense.

As a 2-time Bush voter and still supporter, this petty stuff he sometimes does makes me roll my eyes.

Answer 3

I doubt the line-item veto could pass Constitutional muster. If the purpose is to reduce 'pork barrel' spending... what if the president (whoever it is) WANTS pork? That isn't a solution.

The solution would be if the Congress would not combine unlike initiatives/spending in a single bill. Do some research on early Congressional legislation. It was one bill = one issue. Now, you can 'hide' any amount of 'fluff' in a must pass bill.

We are ruining the spirit, the intent, and purpose of our representative democracy

there - I'm done whining.

Answer 4

your confused.

line item veto has nothing to do with the war.
what is referred to as 'pork barrel' projects are not exclusive to but generally domestic projects.
Line item veto wouldnt completely eliminate them but it would help alot.

As to others who say the sudden desire.. Bill Clinton was for line item veto and I supported it then.

An example...
on a state issue ( the state I live in ) there was an initiative regarding some money being allocated for parks and so forth.. something most people were for.
But added to the bill by politicians was an line taht made it so citizen created initiatives that at the time only required a simple majority vote to be passed would thereafter require a super majority 2/3's vote to be passed. That was a bad thing... making it harder for the citizens to push into law something most people were for. If our governor at the time could have said yes to this but no to that it would have been nice.

Answer 5

Line item veto is scarry territory. The pres would just allow the pork HIS party wanted. It would do little to stop pork barrel spending and other things.

Having it would assume that the pres would be responsible and do what is best for the country rather than stick to party lines.

The solution is for congress to do their job and not bury all kinds of crap in bills. These guys have a fiduciary responsibility that they are failing miserably in executing.

Besides, with signing statements, the pres can elect not do part of legislation and not spend some monies allocated.

Answer 6

The line item veto would make it possible for the President to stop the pork barrel spending that he doesn't agree with. I think that it might be useful, for the President, since he generally gets the blame for the things that Congress does that are outside of his control.

Answer 7

Good point. No line item veto. It would usurp congresses power under the constitution.

Answer 8

It would sure help and be a step in the right direction. Term limits for all politicians would help too. 8 years max for anyone is plenty. We've got too many lifetime politicians who only look out for the buddies they've made ove the decades. We've got to put a stop to these shenanigans our elected officials pull in their late night meetings when no one is watching.

Answer 9

Presidents have been asking for this power for decades and it hasn't happened. It's a moot point because Congress will never yield that much power to the Executive.