The old adage "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it" comes to mind as I listen to the ululations of the GOP over the line-item veto.

Most GOP lawmakers favored giving the president the power of the pen. But now, since the president has wielded the pen, things are different.

Take Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. He campaigned for passage of the line-item veto, but now he's saying that maybe it was a bad idea. He is reported to have said he is "prepared to reconsider" his position.

Why?

Well, a $12.7 million Army Reserve project in his district was one of the projects that got the ax.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Ala., termed Clinton's veto an "arrogant use of power" and says he may back a line-item repeal.

At least Stevens didn't lose any appropriations from his district. Makes him sound a little more sincere.

In the House, the wailing and gnashing of teeth wasn't quite as pronounced, but it was still heard.

Our own Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Monticello, decried the loss of a Grissom AFB project.

Remember the House? The line-item veto was part of the Contract With America.

Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., threatened an override of the recent veto if it "continues to be used so poorly."

I suppose it's human nature to be upset when your project gets cut, but what did the lawmakers expect?

But it's tough for me to rationalize all the hubbub when the Republicans were the ones who continually criticized (and rightfully so, I might add) the excessive spending of Democrats.

The Republicans also touted the line-item veto as the solution to the problem of runaway spending.

So now, when the president actually uses it, why not just suck it up and live with it.

The president has used the power three times so far. The first went with little fanfare because he canceled three obscure provisions from the balanced-budget and tax-cut legislation.

Second was earlier this month when he nixed 38 items from a military construction bill. That's what really started the fuss.

Here, according to a Scripps Howard report, are a few of the projects that were killed in the most recent defense appropriations veto last week. The cuts amounted to $144 million out of a budget of $248 billion.

- Four in California, including $30 million for the operation and maintenance of the Air Force SR-71 surveillance aircraft; $9 million for modifications of that plane; $4 million for research and development of a proton beam radiation treatment for cancer patients; and $37.5 million for research into technology to be used to destroy enemy satellites.

- Two in New Mexico, including $10 million for research on a hypersonic Air Force space plane and $30 million for research for the Air Force's Clementine project, which was exploring the interception of asteroids.

- A $1 million project for research into technology links for rural America, which would have benefited Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho.

- $3 million for a Navy project in Pennsylvania researching high performance sonar systems.

Democrats and Republicans fell victim to the poison pen.

But it's interesting to note that money headed for districts represented by Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia went unscathed.

In fact, companies in those two states accounted for more than one-third of the money in congressional add-ons in the appropriations bill.

Left in were $720 million for an Aegis destroyer to be built in Lott's hometown of Pascagoula, Miss., and $470 million for Lockheed Martin Corp. to build planes in Gingrich's hometown of Marietta, Ga.

If anything, I think the president might have been a little too easy on some of those projects.

The line-item veto was supposed to inflict a little pain on individual congressmen for the good of the taxpayers.

I think that's exactly what it did.

I also think Robert Reischauer, former Congressional Budget Office director, said it best:

"To members of Congress, 'pork' is spending in a different ZIP code, in somebody else's district." [[In-content Ad]]