Actually, Clinton, Bush and Perot all agreed on line-item veto.
Perot would have pushed for better standards in education- he was on the Texas Governor's commission that raised standards in Texas- one which George W. Bush benefited from ex post facto. (Bush took the credit...though he had nothing to do with it...)
A Perot Presidency leaves out the fact that Perot wouldn't have favored open relations with Vietnam. Not sure how Perot would have handled foreign policy. Perot may have been sympathetic to Gore's "Reinventing Government" proposals, since he favors a balanced budget and less regulation. And, lest we forget, Perot ran EDS, so he would favor more tech investment.
I'm not sure how Perot would handle the military or how the peace dividend would work out. (Perot may not favor NATO expansion, which would mean better relations with Russia down the road.) I know the Special Operations Forces would definitely get a big boost in their budget. I'm not sure how he would handle Iraq, though Perot may go a bit easier on them, so they can be back to deter Iran. (Perhaps Perot would listen to Hussein Kamil in 1995?)
Everyone is leaving out the biggest change from Perot. His election would give "outsider" candidates a better chance at the Oval Office- or any office. Perhaps we could see more celebrities in politics. (Nader would certainly get more attention in 1996 and 2000...)