My guess would be that it has to do with who is in power. Clinton signed the line item veto act of 1996 and used the power a number of times to cut out pork projects. He expressly asked for the power in the State of the Union.
It's a double-edged sword. Theoretically it would allow a President to trim pork from the essential spending without having to veto the entire bill--a very good thing. In practice, it allows a president to trim anything from a budget without having to veto the entire bill. In the current highly-partisan political climate, it means that the opposition's programs would often be cut--a very bad thing.
It's disingenuous to say it's only Dems that like to feed on pork. I'm opposed to the line item veto on Constitutional grounds. In THEORY, it could be great. It could also be unusually horrible. (not directed at you Red, obviously.) I think it's out of line with the functions of the Executive and Legislative branches as defined in the Constitution.
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that I didn't care much for. Until I looked closer.........It read re-ELECT HILLARY CLINTON
Chris Dodd Score: 34 Agree Iraq Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Line-Item Veto Energy Marriage Death Penalty Disagree Immigration Taxes Social Security Dennis Kucinich Score: 30
If Duncan Hunter wasn't a "Fair" Trade advocate I would be a much bigger supporter of him. I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who isn't a staunch supporter of free trade.
