Deja Vu all over again: Here comes the big collapse by Bush, Hill GOP on earmarks
January 22, 12:48 PM
Andrew Moylan of the National Taxpayers Union reports lots of buzz on Capitol Hill about President Bush's apparent decision to not sign an Executive Order that could kill the majority of earmarks from the $515 billion omnibus spending bill approved last year.
Such an Executive Order would direct executive branch agencies to ignore all earmarks air-dropped into the bill via committee reports. A recent opinion from the Congressional Research Service noted that such earmarks would not be binding because they weren't voted on by both houses of Congress and included in the actual legislative text signed by the president, as required by the Constitution.
Adding to the buzz is a New York Times story today in which House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is reported cautioning Bush against signing the Executive Order because "a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. Bush’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues, including efforts to revive the economy."
The Times added this even more telling statement: "Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks. In effect, the White House is avoiding a clash with Congress over specific projects while preserving the president’s ability to demand a further reduction in earmarks generally."
Allow me, please, to translate those last two sentences:
With the exception of a tiny band of GOP senators led by Tom Coburn, R-OK, and Jim DeMint, R-SC, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Study Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling and the small caucus of anti-earmark conservatives, the congressional GOP is every bit as addicted to pork-barrel politics as the Democrats, if not even more so.
That's why since before Christmas, the White House has dawdled on what ought to be a no-brainer decision and has thus been hearing from a steady procession of congressional GOPers pleading with Bush not to sign the Executive Order, like drug addicts begging the judge not to force them into rehab.
From that perspective, Blunt's actions, the deafening silence of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Executive Order, and the determined effort of National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole of Oklahoma to get a seat on the House Appropriations Committee instead of supporting efforts to put anti-earmarker Rep. Jeff Flake, R-AZ on the panel are all par for the course.
The problem is the congressional wing of the GOP is all but the second caucus of the Government Party in Washington. Bush wimping out on what could be a milestone in the fight to restore limited government and a tremendous boost for Republican prospects in the 2008 campaign simply reflects the general lack of political courage in the GOP at the national level on spending and entitlements. These people love Big Government and won't take serious actions to reduce its size and scope of power.
Pay particular attention to how the Times phrased the last two sentences quoted above. Assuming Blunt's statements are accurately reflected in the Times paraphrase, what the Missouri GOPer is saying to Bush is this: "Don't do anything concrete to take away our earmarks or we will punish you, but go along with us and we can all keep talking as if we will do something concrete if the voters will give us another chance."
It's a variation on the same old song the Republican establishment has been singing for decades - Talk a good case to get elected, but always put off taking real action till after the next election. Because the conservatives - the people who do most of the work and contribute most of the money - "have no place else to go."
At least the Democrats make no bones about their love of Big Government.
UPDATE: Bush legacy loses
The Club for Growth's Andy Roth notes the damage that will be done to Bush's legacy on economic issues if he fails to sign the Executive Order. The tax cuts were great, but "he will get bad grades unless he does something bold in his last year in office" if he ignores this opportunity.
