The GOP and Earmarks
December 24, 2007; Page A10
There's been quite a fuss over our Thursday editorial, "The End of Earmarks?", which recommended a way that President Bush could instruct federal agencies not to fund these special-interest projects sponsored by Members of Congress. No word yet about Senators leaping in protest from the Capitol Dome, but give it time.
Mr. Bush picked up the theme in his Thursday press conference by criticizing Congress for dropping 9,800 earmarks into its last-minute "omnibus" spending bill -- 11,900 if you include earmarks in the previously passed defense bill. "Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks," Mr. Bush said. "And they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress." He added that he has asked his budget director, Jim Nussle, "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."
That's promising, and we're told there's a debate in the White House over what to do. Our suggestion is that Mr. Bush instruct his cabinet not to spend money on earmarks that aren't specifically mentioned in the language of the spending bill. Most are listed in accompanying Appropriations Committee reports that lack the force of law. The point of this Congressional ruse, in part, is to let Members "air-drop" earmarks at the last minute and thus escape scrutiny by other Members who might try to expose their "Bridges to Nowhere" on the House or Senate floor. Mr. Bush assailed this habit in this year's State of the Union address, and the Members cheered. So why not force Congress to live up to its applause?
Some in the White House fear that such a move would sour relations with Congress, including GOP leaders who love their earmarks as much as Democrats do. We hear that senior Republicans, especially in the Senate, have told the White House that if Mr. Bush refuses to fund these earmarks, he will be courting retribution. There's a reason no Members will make this threat in public, however. They know how unpopular earmarking is with the voting public.
Meanwhile, 19 taxpayer groups and individuals have written an open letter to Mr. Bush picking up on our proposal. The letter asks the President to issue "an executive order formally directing all Federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee reports and statements of managers. Such an action is within your Constitutional powers, and would strike a blow for fiscal responsibility now while setting a valuable precedent for the future."
Congress would be able to rewrite the budget to add earmarks in formal legislative language. But at least then earmarks would be challengeable on the floor. Asked by CNBC's Larry Kudlow last week about earmarks, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell replied that, "Well, there certainly have been some bad earmarks in the past. But you've got to remember, you can knock out all the earmarks, and it wouldn't save any money."
Well, $7.4 billion is real money where we come from, and that misses the way in which earmarks have become opportunities for corruption (felon Duke Cunningham) and an incentive for logrolling that increases overall spending. Mr. Bush and the GOP can take one more step toward restoring their fiscal credentials by striking a blow against "nonlegislative" earmarks.
WSJ
AI
