Conservatives, Candidates Call on Bush to End Earmarks
Does the president have the guts to shut down the favor factory?
By Bluey Posted in Congress | Congress | Earmarks | omnibus bills | President Bush — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
President Bush's suggestion yesterday that he would cancel lawmakers' pork-barrel projects has prompted a backlash from appropriators on Capitol Hill. Sources tell me that even the Christmas holiday hasn't tempered the anger of earmark-loving lawmakers who are aggressively lobbying Bush to reconsider.
With opposition mounting to Bush's idea, fiscal conservatives made sure they didn't stand by silently. This afternoon a coalition of government watchdogs released a letter asking Bush to issue an executive order directing all federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks. The letter followed a policy paper by my colleague Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation outlining three specific steps Bush could take: canceling non-binding earmarks by executive order, refusing to implement earmarks that are not sufficiently specific, and banning "phone-marking."
The earmark debate has also caught fire on the campaign trail. Mitt Romney today called on Bush to "eliminate as many of these earmarks as possible." He added:
Change in Washington begins when we change the culture that allows earmarks, pet projects and wasteful spending to thrive in the place of being good fiscal stewards of the taxpayers' money.
Romney's statement comes just days after rival Rudy Giuliani released an ad condemning earmarks.
Of course, this issue is nothing new for Sen. John McCain, who has railed against earmarks and pork-barrel projects for years. It's refreshing to see McCain's adversaries joining him. Even though McCain missed the vote on the $555-billion omnibus, he made his views crystal clear on the Senate floor earlier in the week:
When we ram through a gigantic bill, spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer's dollars with little or no debate because we want to go home for Christmas, we send the message to the American people that we are not serious enough about our jobs. ... We are sending the signal that it is more important for us to be able to issue press releases, and I am sure hundreds of them will be going out today, about how much pork we have been able to get for our states and districts, than we are about good government and fiscal responsibility. How can we, in good conscience, defend this behavior to the American people?
Bush has the backing the conservative base and now a handful of presidential candidates. But does he have the courage to shut down the favor factory?
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | In Which We Are Reminded That The President Is, Indeed, Relevant — Comments (4) »
Conservatives, Candidates Call on Bush to End Earmarks 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Have you thought about putting that into a blog entry ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...posting the same comment to four different threads got you banned.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And I think you have been misunderestimated once again.
What a brilliant political move. The appropriators get to squeal about their right to earmark in an election year. When their ratings are already in the toilet. Their heads must be about ready to explode.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Interesting in an election year, how all of these Republicans are now so fiscally responsible after years of reckless spending. If you look at their records objectively, none of the current candidates is fiscally responsible, except for Ron Paul.
...you might have noticed that getting to shill for Ron Paul here is a privilege, not a right.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I can see why the Ron Paul comments were banned.
They remind me of Howard Stern listeners who would call TV and Radio shows just to say "Baba Booey". Their comments are annoying and usually totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Libertarians have always been an odd bunch. (the party, not the positions). It seems they just want to be different and therefore better than the regular voter. If Ron Paul were actually given a chance to win, libertarians would say he sold out and run to some Larouche type nut job so as to not ruin their private little party.
Sorry it is off topic, but nearly every time Paul is mentioned it has nothing to do with the subject of the main thread.
Terminated.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'd really like to see him leading our military - Secretary of Defense. There would never have been a better one. Or senate majority leader.
As for president, well he gets a point for fighting earmarks and then loses 3 on immigration.
and probably endear him to the public at large, ending his tenure with an approval rating in the 50s.
Could you imagine the presidential debates... the liberal promising to restore the earmarks on day 1 and hopefully the conservative, Fred Thompson, saying "hell no".
And why hasn't anybody paralleled HRC's promise for "middle class tax cuts" to Bubba's in '92? It wouldn't be a surprise to hear her repeat the refrain "I'm sorry, but I tried and there turns out there just isn't any money for a tax cut."
He raised the gasoline tax a nickel right out of the gate. That and "don't ask don't tell" were his first two big accomplishments right? Or maybe it was those two and other tax increases.
Bush is the one who actually cut taxes for ALL taxpayers.
The numbers being batted about for the total on the earmarks on the omnibus bill are between 20 Billion and 23 Billion depending on where you look.
Now to put that into perspective that is approximately the entire annual federal revenue stream from the State of Virginia for one year.
Thats personal taxes, corporate taxes and federal fees and taxes on all sorts of other stuff.
I have found that earmarks can be very popular at the local level. I've seen earmarks used to help rural hospitals, to expediate needed road repairs, offset the cost of mandated water treatment plants, etc. Who in the Federal government knows better the local needs of his or her district than their Representative?
So, here's my proposal. Outlaw earmarks. Replace them with a new law, allocating $50 million per year (or such amount as Congress shall agree upon) directly to each Congressional district. The funds shall be administered by the Congressman's local office and the cost of administration shall come from the funds. Require 100% transparency, outlaw personal enrichment of the Congressman or his/her staff and quid pro quo arrangements. Otherwise, let the Congressman and his/her staff determine how it's spent.
This will certainly be attacked as unconstitutional. My argument, in advance, is that it falls under the General Welfare clause. While General Welfare has been construed not to mean local welfare, the uniform distribution of funds across all districts should make moot that argument.
is that they would gladly spend that money, then on top of it have pork and earmarks.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I agree that it would be a problem unless other measures were taken to eliminate the pork. The point is that earmarks that bring local benefit are very popular at the local level. While I may think all in Congress are scumbags because of earmarks, I exempt MY Congressman because the local benefit I see is for hospitals, roads, police, and prevention of crime. So goes the thinking around the country I suspect.
So, if there is a benfitial side to these earmarks, can we find a way to reap the benefits without the downsides, a way that is fair to all? That's the question on the table.
Sen. Jim DeMint today released a legal memo from the Congressional Research Service confirming that President Bush has the authority to eliminate non-legislative earmarks by executive order. The four-page report is available here as a PDF. It partially states:
This memorandum is in response to your request for a legal analysis of the President’s authority to issue an executive order that would instruct ‘federal agency officials to ignore Congressional Earmarks contained in committee report language.’ In addition, you have also asked us to address whether, as a matter of law, earmarks contained only in committee report language are legally binding on federal agencies.
Based on our review of the relevant constitutional provisions, statutes, and applicable case law it appears that the President possesses the necessary legal and constitutional authority to issue such an executive order. That said, the issuance of an executive order appears to be a discretionary act whose issuance is solely vested with the President of the United States. With respect to your second question, it appears that because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution — specifically, bicameralism and presentment — they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies.
Not carrying out the earmarks is a penny ante on Bush's part. The money still get allocated to the beauracracy to be spent and its a tiny part of the budget anyway.
If he were at all serious about reigning spendig in his final 12 months in office - as opposed to just wnating to seem to do it when it is easier politically becase the Democrats happen to control congress - he would veto the omnibus bill altogether.
Look-- are you serious? Ron Paul: leader??? The guy barely has the respect of his peers on the House Floor. It's like "oh there goes Ron again, voting 'against the grain' " so he can "run for President" and use the money he gets while he's running for "President" in his Congressional campaign.
It's a good insurance policy in case the GOP wants to unseat him in his own district. Now he has plenty of money to work with.
Smart guy. But President? No way, he couldn't work with the D.C. machine.
Caucus Cooler: Huck Makes $35,000 from Consulting Embryonic Stem Cell Research Company
I don’t really care about Huckabee’s liberal positions. Well, not nearly as much as this kind of stuff.
Most noteworthy, $35,000 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world’s largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure
He also received speaking fees and honoraria from churches while Governor.
It is certainly calls into question whether or not it is appropriate for a Governor to be taking a consulting fee from interest groups, as Huckabee did, when issues surrounding that interest group could come across his desk.
The consulting money was funneled through an organization called 12 stops, a group created in 2004 to handle Gov. Huckabee’s book deals. With all the attention Senator Obama received for running a separate PAC and potentially funnelling money from maxed out donors through that PAC, it calls into question whether Huckabee may have done the same