[trubluolyguy]

WTF does he need it for he doesn't veto anyways? I know, he'll veto out anything in any bill dealing with getting tougher on illegals or businesses that hire them.

[FreedomNeocon]

You're such a tool.

No need for a line item veto, because he never veto's entire bills?

Think please...

[SoFloFreeper]

Reps. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., have a bill under which the president would send to Congress, in the form of legislation, a list of projects he believes should not be funded.

Congress would then be required to vote within 15 days, by a simple majority rather than the two-thirds needed to override a veto, on whether to keep the project alive.

It "allows the president to shine the light of day on specific item in federal spending," Musgrave said. "The climate is right for it."

This is a rather good idea. Another one I thought of: Pass a law allowing the President to "line item" veto any "earmarked" piece of spending--something not specifically voted on by the Congress. Now, this might result in the President nitpicking against his political enemies, but it also could allow him to weed out all sorts of garbage, the kind like Pork King Robert Byrd (Klansman) infuses into every bill.

[hondo1951]

SSSoooooo, we're going to ask congress, the body which inserts the pork barrel spending in the first place, to allow the president to veto discreectionery pork barrel spending from any bill? What a concept-good luck!!!!

[NCSteve]

I know, he'll veto out anything in any bill dealing with getting tougher on illegals or businesses that hire them.

Bingo. More to the point, he'll use the line-item veto to try to overcome one of the most severe cases of lame duck in the history of his office. The Congress that convenes in 2007 will be hard-pressed even to remember the name of who sits in the Oval Office. Count on it.