What I said in the past on the issue of line-item veto.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/115680-should-president-have-line-item-veto-power-5.html
No.Because the president will just simply veto what ever he wants and keep what he wants.For example lets take a so called compromise on illegal immigration( if the American people are stupid enough to fall for another so called compromise) that involves amnesty for all the illegals,tax payer aid to help the illegals no longer be illegals , crack downs on the scum who hire illegals as well a crack down on the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary states and cities that aid illegals and a ban on tuition for illegals children. A president that supports amnesty will simply veto all the enforcement measures against illegal immigration such as the crack downs on scum who hire illegals and the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary state and city policies.A politician that is actually against illegal immigration will simply veto any amnesty provisions as well as anything else that encourages illegal immigration. A line item veto is a double edged sword. It hurts you if the president doesn't support what you support and it helps you if the president supports what you support.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/11871-bush-pushes-congress-line-item-veto.html#post342163
The line-item veto sounds like a double edge sword.The good thing is that it could eliminate alot of pork,the bad thing is that congress and senate could come up with some comprimise and then that comprimise overturned.
For example they could come up with a comprimise that sent employers who hired illegals to prison and permanately took away their ability to own or operate a business and made felons,granted illegals amnesty,put a actual walls on the border,Guest worker programs.A president like Bush who is very proillegal would cut out the stiff punishments for emplyers who hire illegals and the wall on the border and keep everything else which is guest worker programs and amnesty for illegals.