[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Lawmakers Cite Several Flaws in Executive Order to Reduce Earmarks Lawmakers Cite Several Flaws in Executive Order to Reduce Earmarks By Liriel Higa, CQ Staff As President Bush moved forward on his push to curb earmarks, lawmakers in both parties bristled at what many see as an incursion on the power of the legislative branch. Democrats said Tuesday that Bush’s focus on reducing earmarks was a bid to distract attention from other issues, such as the economy and the war in Iraq. “This, like so much else that George Bush is doing, is a giant diversion,” said House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis. “He has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the universe and now he thinks that his monument is going to be earmarks? Give me a break.” Last year, Bush called on Congress to cut in half the member projects added to spending bills. In his State of the Union address Jan. 28, he backed that up with a veto threat. On Tuesday, the president signed an executive order directing agencies to ignore earmarks in future spending legislation that are not specifically in bill text. Most earmarks are in the reports that accompany the bills. Political Ploy? Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., accused Bush of trying to score political points by setting out an earmark policy that would have little effect, particularly because of the changes Democrats instituted at the start of the 110th Congress. Those changes, Durbin said, made the process significantly more transparent. Democrats noted that Bush did not veto any appropriations bills during the years that Republicans controlled Congress, when the number of earmarks grew significantly. The executive order requiring that earmarks be ignored unless in bill text will remain in place after Bush leaves office unless a successor changes it. But some lawmakers believe the tough stance on cutting earmarks in half in fiscal 2009 spending bills could prove meaningless, since the next president could end up signing the bills into law. “I think what will happen is Democrats will drag the appropriations process out till the next election, and I think whoever wins the White House will determine how the appropriations bills are done,” said Rep. James T. Walsh, R-N.Y. Walsh, a senior appropriator who is retiring at the end of the year, said earmarking is part of the power of the legislature to decide how best to spend federal money. “I think we as a legislature want to respect his priorities, but he needs to respect ours. So as long as I’m here I will fight him on that,” Walsh said. Even if Congress sends some fiscal 2009 spending bills to the president, lawmakers won’t necessarily acquiesce to his demands to cut the cost and number of earmarks in half. The Defense Gambit Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior Defense appropriator, said that if the president wants to play hardball, legislators could direct the bulk of the earmarks to the huge Defense appropriations bill and then dare Bush to reject the measure and deny funding for the military. “Defense is the only bill where we’re going to give him anything he wants. And because that’s the one he wants, it’ll be full of earmarks and he’s not going to issue a peep about that,” Moran said. The Defense bill could become the earmark hub, Moran said, and Republicans would surely jump on board. “In an election year, you can bet they’re going to earmark everything they can get their hands on.” A number of lawmakers said they support increased transparency for the process. Many also want the practice of “airdropping” earmarks into conference reports to stop. Fiscal conservatives hope that requiring earmarks to be in the bills will lead to savings, but that would depend on how the bills are written. Typically, when an earmark is stripped it does not affect the bill’s total cost. “It may control some wasteful spending but it will not bring down the deficit, because earmarks are put in after the budget numbers are figured,” Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho, an appropriator, said of the plan. The ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said Bush’s call for a 50 percent reduction in earmarks made sense only if it meant reducing the baseline by a comparable amount. “If he doesn’t say that,” said Gregg, “all he’s saying is ‘I want 50 percent more to spend myself.’ ” Josh Rogin and Kathleen Hunter contributed to this story.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
bump that!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||