My goodness, George Will and I agree on something...

[acroyear]

The Vexing Qualities of a Veto:

Not only is the constitutionality of the line-item veto questionable, so, too, is the veto's utility as a restraint on spending. Arming presidents with a line-item veto might increase federal spending, for two reasons.

First, Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, may be exactly wrong when he says the veto would be a "deterrent" because legislators would be reluctant to sponsor spending that was then singled out for a veto. It is at least as likely that, knowing the president can veto line items, legislators might feel even freer to pack them into legislation, thereby earning constituents' gratitude for at least trying to deliver.

Second, presidents would buy legislators' support on other large matters in exchange for not vetoing the legislators' favorite small items. During the two-year life of the line-item veto, Vice President Al Gore promised that Clinton would use the bargaining leverage it gave him to get legislators to increase welfare spending.

The line-item veto's primary effect might be political, and inimical to a core conservative value. It would aggravate an imbalance in our constitutional system that has been growing for seven decades: the expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislature.

Comments

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info, and the article link. I had forgotten about the whole Clinton line-item issue, and I hadn't considered the Constitution's take on the whole matter.

regarding gubernatorial, it sounds like we're calling governors "goobers" (which some may be), or using a southern accent, but it comes from the Latin gubernator.