Before this debate begins, I would like to ask the
audience to not vote until a week after my
opponent accepts, to read both arguments before
voting, and to vote based on the merit of the
argument alone rather than preconceived opinion.

The topic I will be debating is the Line Item
Veto. For those who do not know, the line item
veto allows the veto certain individual parts of
passed legislation without rejecting the
legislation as a whole.

My opponent will choose whether he or she will
argue in support of it or argue in opposition of
it and is expected to produce an opening argument.

I will be arguing against the Line Item Veto.

The fundamental flaw that I see with the Line Item
Veto is that it gives the president too much power
and it would make congress comparatively
inferior.

Another problem is that if a president eliminates
certain parts of a bill (especially in a case if
the parts of the bill are interconnected or
dependent on each other), the bill could be
distorted out of it's intended context or it could
be ineffective.

How can congress cast a vote on any piece of
legislation if they don't know what the final
product is going to be? The final product, once
the president modifies it, may be something that a
representative regrets voting for.

Also, it is going to make partisan politics worse.
Two parties could spend a lot of effort into
compromising and writing a bill which both sides
agree on, but once it reaches the president's
desk, the president would easily be able to make
the bill unilateral by cutting out the policies of
the other party.

Of course the Line Item Veto quality of the
president. A good president would use the power
wisely to shave wasteful spending. But a Line
Item Veto would also be able to be abused by a bad
president. An uncooperative leader can use the
power out of spite. An incompetent leader would
have more room to make error.

Essentially, there is no need for a line item
veto. If passed legislation is pork-laden, the
president is always able to say "Take the pork out
of the bill, pass the bill again, and I will sign
it".

I assume that you moderating your views on the
Line Item Veto is a sign of concession.

Some spending such as pork barrel earmarks are
wasteful, but other spending isn't wasteful.

By giving the president the power to veto
unnecessary spending, you give him/her the power
to veto necessary spending as well, which is a bad
precedent to set.

The president could cut defense spending during a
war and can cut effective programs.

Proponents of the unconstitutional line item veto
suggest that it cuts waste and inefficiency out of
government, but it can also do the opposite.

The line item veto works on ALL provisions of the
legislation. Yes, the president can cut spending
and cut tax increases, but the president can cut
tax decreases or provisions of the bill which will
cut spending.

If an bill is passed containing the provision that
the president is allowed to veto specific parts of
that individual piece of legislation, that would
not be a problem as the president has consent of
congress to do so.

But setting a precedent to give the president even
more power than congress can be dangerous in the
long run.

I'm absolutely for a line item veto. Almost every
bill that passes through Congress and the House is
full of pork. A fiscally responsible president
would have the ability to eliminate so many
unnecessary spending projects that are set up just
to satisfy lobbyists.

I can cite several examples, and will, bit will
require more research time. There is no doubt that
spending is out of control. We need to limit
government spending in whatever way we can. We're
running out of time and money fast.

2009 ($19.6 billion in earmark spending)

$1.9 million for a water taxi service to Pleasure
Beach, Connecticut - population 0

$1.8 million in swine odor and manure management
research in Ames, Iowa

And in Obama's stimulus bill (just a few
examples):

- $300 million to buy "green" cars for federal
employees.

- $98 million for a polar icebreaker for the Coast
Guard

- $200 million to design and furnish the
Department of Homeland Security headquarters

- $150 million for parking improvements at a
Little League facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico

- $6 million for a snowmaking and maintenance
facility at Spirit Mountain ski area in Duluth,
Minnesota

How does that make you feel as you and/or yur
neighbors are collectiong unemployment, looking
for work, trying to keep your home out of
foreclosure and struggling to feed your family.

V E T O ... please

I have to agree with you in part. In theory, line
item veto works well. In practice, it is a
political tool that would most likely be abused.
The answer i would like to hear is that no more
earmarks be put into bills. It's safe to assume
that won't happen. So, perhaps controls need to be
put into place to limit the scope of line item
veto power. Someone much smarter than me can
figure that riddle out.

If bills were put on POTUS desk without the pork,
line item vetoes would be irrelevant. That I can
agree to. But, that is not the case, and may never
be. Perhaps the better debate would be "Is it
necessary to add earmarks to bills?" A line item
veto is not perfect, but there are no other
options as long as we are burdened with all of the
pork.

If bills were put on POTUS desk without the pork,
line item vetoes would be irrelevant. That I can
agree to. But, that is not the case, and may never
be. Perhaps the better debate would be "Is it
necessary to add earmarks to bills?" A line item
veto is not perfect, but there are no other
options as long as we are burdened with all of the
pork.