The amount of money that property taxpayers have paid over the years to transport our kids to school probably justifies that transfer as pay back. But we should look at the constitution as a long-term document not to be tinkered with lightly, as constitutional law experts emphasized at a conference last fall sponsored by the Marquette Law School and the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities. A trio of former governors and former Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow were dinner speakers at the event, and their presentation was covered by wispolitics.com. The speakers were evenly split on the partial veto, and not along party lines.

"That veto has served the people of the state very well," said former Republican Gov. Lee S. Dreyfus, who spoke to the dinner via videotape. "The abuses are so far outweighed by the good uses." Former Gov. Tony Earl, a Democrat, and Farrow shared the sentiment that the partial veto needs to be reined in. But former Democratic Gov. Patrick J. Lucey disagreed. "The Legislature has already remedied the item veto (by outlawing the 'Vanna White' veto). If the governor overreaches or the Legislature thinks he overreaches, they have a remedy," Lucey said. That, of course, is a veto override, a commonplace occurrence in Wisconsin government before the Capitol became so darn partisan.

The state budget bill, where the partial veto is mostly exercised (it can only be used in a bill containing an appropriation) is also a partisan document. Legislators sometimes insert things in the state budget for political reasons. Don't be shocked, it's been happening for years. They don't really expect that pet bridge project to be signed into law, they want to tell their constituents they tried. This happens on a bipartisan basis. As politics in Wisconsin has become more partisan, the budget has become more a political weapon. Previous governors have been creative users of the partial veto, even taking individual letters out of words to make new words (the cleverly named Vanna White veto), until that was made unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court has given them the power to cross out numbers in a budget bill and write in lower numbers.

But the Frankenstein veto isn't a fact, it's a slogan that expresses someone's conclusion. It must have been named by a marketing guy. Marketing people, who seem to multiply like rabbits, have taken to selling us governmental policy by slogan lately. If the voters of Wisconsin swallow the slogan and repeal the Frankenstein veto, we may well be saddled by Frankenstein budgets for years to come.

Editor's note: Rich, tell me you've looked at the Transportation fund raid veto (linked in the piece) and weren't horrified. I'm waiting..... J.E.

Jo; You can’t have it both ways. If you call this line item veto the “Frankenstein Veto” what do you call the line item veto the President Bush wants?

He is using Tommy Thompson on his road speeches to tell the public how well the line item veto works in Wisconsin! He says he needs it to control the enemy who controls congress. That would be the Democrats. He says without the line item veto we would have uncontrolled growth in the federal government, we would have uncontrolled pork barrel bills, we would have run away deficits, and we would be putting a great debt on our grandchildren. At the same time we would ruin the military to the point that they would not be able to protect this country from attack. Opps, I guess we are too late, that all happened the last six years, with everyone (Congress, President) in the same Republican party. You can’t have it both ways. If it is a problem because a Democrat is using it, it is the same problem when a Republican uses it.

Editor's Note: Norb, the extremely broken-up, piece-meal "veto" is a problem whomever is using it. Did you look at the example of the "Frankenstein Veto linked in the piece? It's just not good government. JE

Yeah, constiutions should not be tinkered around with lightly only as needed. Sticking to the spirit of the law was not able to get the job done, so our lawyer governor used his lawyer's skills and found a way to get what he wanted. How do we fix this? Some adjustments and limitations are needed to the power.

I would say the minimum amount of veto should be the legislative atomic unit whatever that is, for example in the linked-to .pdf, the section labeled (d) in the right column should be vetoed whole or not vetoed at all. However, amending the constitution is a kloodge that will only work until someone w/o scruples and a good lawyer figures out a way to subvert that.