An editorial from the Herald-Journal in Spartanburg, SC:
Solution to earmark problem is more congressional responsibility, not more presidential power
In pushing for a line-item veto, President Bush is trying to resurrect a failed idea that is unlikely to solve the problem he wants to address. Bush proposed legislation Monday that would give him the power to veto individual spending items in appropriations bills. The president said it would allow him to strip out pork-barrel spending.
...
More presidential power is not what's needed.
The answer is more responsibility in Congress. Representatives and senators have to change their budget system to disallow special projects and focus on national priorities.
Frankly, if newspapers believe that the issue lies with Congress, then they should understand that one of the biggest problems is that these members of Congress treat the budget deficit as if it has no repercussion on their ability to be re-elected. Why?
Because it doesn't. They keep getting re-elected. And they almost always keep getting recommended for re-election by... their local newspapers.
So why do newspapers act like they care about balancing the budget? Where is the proof, beyond the lip service, that they care? Do newspapers take hard positions - vote for a balanced budget or face our opposition at election time? Do newspapers complain when pork comes to town? Why would anyone really expect a newspaper to oppose pork in the first place - after all, chances are that some of that money might end up in their pocket.
So why do newspapers pretend like they care about the deficit and porkbarrel spending? Why the act?