Line-Item Veto

Re “Clinton Uses First Line-Item Veto on Budget Measures,” Aug. 12: Bravo for the line-item veto. But what took so long? It should have been illegal all along, and considered fraud, if anything not directly appropriate to a bill is appended. Special interests should not be permitted to play the old game of slipping a self-serving provision into a massive bill in the hope that the public won’t notice.

MARIA DENKER

Studio City

* For years, the Republicans, objecting to pork-barrel bills added on to vital congressional bills submitted to the president, have pushed for the line-item veto. Democratic President Clinton agreed and the line-item veto law was passed. Then, Republicans add pork-barrel bills to a historic bill affecting the nation’s economy and submit it to the president for signature. The president signs the bill into law--and uses the line-item veto to strike add-ons. Republicans claim that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. Have the Republicans, for political reasons, been duping the voters for all these years?

BOB TODD

Newport Beach

* It would appear that the opportunity-seeking Clinton has missed the mark with his unprecedented use of the line-item veto (“How Sweet It Isn’t, Clinton Learns After Sugar-Beet Veto,” Aug. 12). The real people hurt by this move are, in fact, average farmers, and not the original target, Harold C. Simmons, Texas millionaire and heavy GOP contributor. Smooth move! By the way, is it not too late for him to wield his pen against his crime bill of ‘94? Not too much pork there, eh?

DANIEL ESPARZA

Seal Beach

* Clinton has achieved his long-sought goal of being remembered forever by the American people. He has invoked the line-item veto. This is a historic event.

STANLEY C. MELLIN