Yes everyone understands the veto proof majority on the bill, but trying to stop it isn't the point. It puts the bill back to congress where they can either take the time to read it and fix it as he requested or ram it through and he doesn't get any blame. This "redlining" might serve the same purpose, but violates the presentment clause of the constitution similar to other line item veto bills. If he gets what he wants and he can hold funding for 45 days like some are spouting, great, but congress can just vote on passing the bill as is anyway.
Yes everyone understands the veto proof majority on the bill, but trying to stop it isn't the point. It puts the bill back to congress where they can either take the time to read it and fix it as he requested or ram it through and he doesn't get any blame. This "redlining" might serve the same purpose, but violates the presentment clause of the constitution similar to other line item veto bills. If he gets what he wants and he can hold funding for 45 days like some are spouting, great, but congress can just vote on passing the bill as is anyway.