There's so much fat in the federal budget each year. I wish someone could go through with a highlighter pen and just zero out the stuff that we don't really need.

Bruce that reminds me of the movie "Dave" , a completely unrealistic movie but really cute .

Am I not understanding this whole issue, but didn't Clinton balance the budget, then have a surplus?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clint on.surplus/

I know he caught hell for cutting the military.

"Ronald Reagan (one of the few politicians in American history who actually was able to cut federal spending) always wanted the President to have a line-item veto for the federal budget. That way, the President could veto the obvious pork without vetoing the entire budget."

Or just veto stuff that isn't pork but just funding he disagrees with politically. So, let's say that his party compromises on a few things where the congress is usually split along party lines (the democrats give something and the republicans give something to make a compromise that gets the budget through) then the President goes in and does a line item veto on everything his party conceded to the opposition.

That is the risk of a line item veto. Of course it wouldn't work that often before congress got hopelessly deadlocked along party lines, but it's a hell of a risk for any congress to take. Bush would have relished having a line item veto. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that he didn't think he had a line item veto on everything from the budget to legislation.

As for Obama not being able to fulfill his promises when he gets into power? That's a given. He's telling us what he'll try to do. Reality will limit what he can do. But the same is true for McCain. With a huge deficit and huge debts, and diminishing tax revenue, just how many tax cuts do you think he'll be able to pass out? The bulk of his economic plan is tax cuts. Huge tax cuts. And when the government purse is sinking, that's like punching extra holes to let the water out.

Bruce that reminds me of the movie "Dave" , a completely unrealistic movie but really cute .

I enjoyed that movie and The American President -- which was Clinton's favorite presidential movie -- liberal president has a smart daughter, high approval ratings, his wife is dead and he's boneing Annette Benning!  That was Bill's dream!

"Victory" in Iraq costs money. You want it, pay for it. -As a matter of fact, I'd be all in favor of tying the war effort to a nice little check box on income tax forms. Unless enough Republicans chip in a few thousand a year, we cut our loses and come home. -You want it? Pay up. Pay as you go.

I didn't realize that only Republicans voted to authorize the war.  Democrats have had the congress since 2006 why did they keep finding it?  A Republican administration led us to war -- with that you are right on.  But the Democrats are FAR from blameless.  And not every Republican was in favor of this war.  I didn't.

Bush would have relished having a line item veto. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that he didn't think he had a line item veto on everything from the budget to legislation.

**********

Actually, I read somewhere that Bush has used his veto power far less than any other president in recent memory.

It's certainly possible that a President could use a line-item veto irresponsibly. But Congress could always overturn it. And if voters didn't like it, they could register their disapproval at the ballot box. 

And, like I said, presidents of both parties would have the same power. I, for one, would have absolutely no problem with Obama having a line-item veto. In fact, I'd gladly give him that authority and trust that he would use it responsibly.

(As for Constitutionality questions, that may be problematic. But like Geoff said, no one really knows because it hasn't gotten that far.)

 Democrats have had the congress since 2006 why did they keep finding it? 

Because they asked themselves: Are you going to be a politician to cut beneifits to those serving our country. If you stop funding that means armor can't be bought, medical, ammo and other needs for the troops. What they need to do is introduce a bill putting a timeline withdraw to a vote and not pile other things on it.

And, like I said, presidents of both parties would have the same power. I, for one, would have absolutely no problem with Obama having a line-item veto. In fact, I'd gladly give him that authority and trust that he would use it responsibly.

Bruce that is really nice to see you post.

Because they asked themselves: Are you going to be a politician to cut beneifits to those serving our country. If you stop funding that means armor can't be bought, medical, ammo and other needs for the troops. What they need to do is introduce a bill putting a timeline withdraw to a vote and not pile other things on it.

I know that Jodi -- I was answering Rhetoric with Rhetoric!  I was Hannitizing!  :o)

For reasons we've discussed I want out too but I don't agree with the timeline idea, per se.  Although I think we effectively are on one now.

Like everyone, I'd love to see our troops come home. But I wouldn't want to see us leave Iraq prematurely. We should leave when -- and only when -- Iraq is stable enough to stand on its own two feet. The last thing we need is for it to become a lawless breeding ground for terrorists like Afghanistan in the 1990s.

And maybe we've reached that point -- I dunno. But I'd want to see the decision to withdraw be made because of circumstances on the ground, not because of a random timeline.