From Slate Magazine Ross Douthat and Mickey Kaus argue yes:
“The third option is to recognize junk spending as the greatest threat to consequential spending and pass a constitutional amendment to give the president a line-item veto to prevent it. While the line-item veto is often seen as a conservative idea, many Democrats—from Mike Dukakis to Bill Clinton—have endorsed it over the years, and most governors in both parties already have it.
In the past, some congressional leaders have resisted shifting that much power to the executive branch. But both parties and both houses might have something to gain from giving the president a line-item veto. Advocates of fiscal discipline would pick up a powerful new tool. Advocates of increased government investment would benefit from fixing spending blunders with a precision scalpel instead of a blunt instrument.”
Is there a good economic argument to this? What about a public choice argument? We could imagine that this would do a lot of good since more axes in government can never be a bad thing. But is this giving the Executive Branch too much power as many have argued? The Executive Branch has been receiving more and more power as the years go on and this could make Congress near obsolete. Unless you word it in a way that the President could only line-item pork and then what defines pork? I am no expert on this subject so there may be a solution to all of this I do not know about.
Sidenote: I like how they use an increase in government investment, not spending.
The rest is here, for some reason the link thing isn’t working:http://www.slate.com/id/2213248/