Bring back the item veto

One of the huge issues that Republican's and Democrats beat each other over the head with is earmarks.  Earmarks, those dollops of Federal dollars that members of Congress hand out to their districts to curry favor are made possible by the budget process where the President, when he gets a budget from Congress, faces an all or nothing choice.  He can either veto the entire budget, or swallow any objections and sign it.

Some states, including California, provide the chief executive with the power to veto individual expenditures while still approving the overall budget.  It is called the line item veto here in California.  Item veto's are not a cure for all government fiscal impropriety, but they are a useful tool, particularly in the sense that they give taxpayers one person to hold accountable for funding programs that really don't deserve taxpayer dollars.

Back in the early 1990's, Republicans trying to get back into power in Washington by hammering Democrats on the deficit, pushed through a bill giving the President a line item veto.  A year or two later the Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional.  One would think the Republicans, who by that time controlled both houses of Congress, would have proposed and pushed a constitutional amendment to allow the line item veto.  But, since they were now the ones handing out earmarks to curry favor with voters, they evidently lost interest - probably in part because Bill Clinton was President and they didn't want to give him the power to veto their pet projects.  The notion of a line item veto sank into oblivion.

It should be revived.  Whats happening in Europe is an object lesson on how hard it is to control government expenditures.  An item veto would be a useful tool.