Has Bush Lost His Spine On Earmarks?
The Washington Examiner wonders whether George Bush fears Congress more than his constituents in a battle over pork proliferation. As I noted yesterday, the White House appears to have backed away from issuing an executive order defunding the non-legislative earmarks in the omnibus spending bill, which account for 90% of the nine thousand pork items. Porkbusters wonder why the President won't follow a course of action that follows the law and forces Congress to adhere to its own rules:
Conservatives and good-government groups have been urging Bush since before Christmas to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to ignore earmarks contained in committee reports that are not attached to legislation voted into law. Bush has previously picked fights with Congress on executive privilege issues. Yet he seems uncharacteristically reluctant to do so now, despite being on legal grounds declared solid by none other than the Congressional Research Service and the U.S. Supreme Court.
So what is Bush waiting for?
Signing such an executive order would eliminate most earmarks and force Congress to clean up its act. By funneling billions of dollars to favored — and often secret — earmark recipients, members of Congress bypass their own legislative process, as well as the competitive bidding typically required in the executive branch.
Bush has received warnings from Congressional leadership in both parties that cancellation of the earmarks would lead to angry relations from members in 2008. This amounts to a type of extortion. How much should non-angry relations cost the American taxpayer? Is it really worth the $16.7 billion contained in these earmarks for everyone to have a Rodney King moment and get along -- for about a day?
Or are there other considerations? Last night, the Politico reported that the Democrats in the House have stalled on voting for contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten over the firings of presidentially-appointed federal prosecutors. Their leadership says they've put it off to keep a bipartisan effort on an economic stimulus alive, but privately admit they don't have the votes to approve the citations. Perhaps the White House figures that the $16.7 billion has convinced enough Representatives to vote down the citations.
Is that unfair? Well, when our elected officials demand that they keep their money in exchange for doing the nation's business, they have identified themselves as commodities to be bought and sold, if not the explicit basis of the sales. If Bush wants to end that kind of politics using the clear authority he has to do so, he will have no better opportunity.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on January 23, 2008 7:26 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)
Sphere It - Email this post Print Posts
Not Everyone Porks Up
The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes that the excuse used by members of Congress for pork-barrel spending doesn't add up, like almost every Congressional budget. Politicians claim that their constituents demand the projects that they bring back from Washington, but as the LVRJ notes, it isn't the constituents asking for the money. The federal dollars usually wind up supporting -- other politicians:
Lawmakers who continue to indulge in earmarks -- self-described fiscal conservatives among them -- argue that if they don't bring some money home for their constituents, other states are lined up at the trough to steal the leftovers.
But the representatives and senators who've stopped bringing home the bacon aren't hearing complaints from voters. In fact, many enjoy the support of citizens tired of seeing tax dollars squandered on projects that have little merit. These taxpayers are content to let other states bear the guilt of such extravagance, if such sacrifices bring the country closer to fiscal responsibility and accountability.
No, most of the squealing these lawmakers hear comes from ... state and local governments, the biggest beneficiaries of federal pork.
Members of Congress, who spend most of their time in Washington, don't come up with ideas for earmarks on their own. They're bombarded with pork requests from state legislatures, law enforcement agencies, public colleges and universities and municipal governments.
This exposes one of the dirty secrets of the earmark process. If one looks through the earmarks carefully, a large percentage of them go to other politicians. It feeds the system that produces the candidates and ensures that incumbents maintain their power base in their home districts and states. Failure to feed the machine could result in an end to the career in Congress.
The Review-Journal mentions several Congressmen and Senators who have rejected pork for their districts and states, including Jeff Flake and Tom Coburn. Neither of them earmark funds at all, and neither does my Congressman, John Kline (R-MN). He converted to the porkbuster cause after the 2006 election taught him and the rest of the GOP a painful lesson.
Not that conversion has been easy. The LVRJ notes that our district has its share of unhappy local politicians who counted on getting easy money from Washington. The Scott County board wanted some cash for a road in their area, but Kline refused to acquiesce. Jon Ulrich, one of the commissioners, says that he wanted Kline to work within the system while trying to change it -- or, in other words, hypocritically earmark funds while railing against earmarks.
Kline's not a hypocrite, unlike others who have no problem complaining about extra-Constitutional federal action while larding up their home districts. We need more Republicans like Kline, and a GOP leadership that recognizes the risks they take. That's why many of us continue to call for Jeff Flake to get the open seat on the House Appropriations Committee -- so that the Republican leadership can demonstrate that they want to end the hypocrisy as well.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on January 23, 2008 7:09 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
Sphere It - Email this post Print Posts
AI
