WaPo reported Seeking to reassert his party's scuffed reputation for fiscal conservatism, President Bush yesterday proposed a law giving him authority to veto individual items in legislation as a way to curb fast-growing federal spending.
I support giving the president the same power most governors have, especially considering how earmarks have been abused, but I would prefer the Constitutional Ammendment approach.Bush, who has never exercised his veto power in more than five years as president, said the line-item veto would give him authority to clamp down on special-interest items, known on Capitol Hill as earmarks, increasingly slipped into legislation to benefit the home districts of lawmakers. Congress passed legislation authorizing the line-item veto in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down as an unconstitutional abridgement of the separation of powers shortly after it was enacted by President Bill Clinton. By requiring that the cuts made by the president be approved by Congress, the White House believes it will avoid any constitutional problems with the new legislation.
If a bunch of legislators have slipped in earmarks for their states or region, what makes you think they are going to vote to sustain a veto. That is why I prefer the Constitutional Ammendment approach.