President Bush to Curtail Congressional Earmarks (will issue Executive Order)

[maddezmom]

Source: Bolomberg

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush will begin ``unprecedented steps'' to trim billions of dollars earmarked by lawmakers for pet projects, a White House spokesman said.

In his State of the Union address tonight, Bush will promise to ``veto any spending bill that does not succeed in cutting earmarks in half from 2008 levels,'' deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said in an e-mail.

Bush will issue an executive order tomorrow directing federal agencies to ignore any earmarks included only in committee reports, not in the text of legislation.

Bush will say that if spending for such projects is warranted, then ``Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote,'' Fratto said.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080128/pl_bloomberg/arjoxb3meak

[C_U_L8R]

1. quack quack quack quack quack

[hobbit709]

4. That's Quack, Limp, quack, limp quack, limp,

[LiberalFighter]

2. That is the same as a line item veto and it was ruled unconstituional by the SC

[onenote]

23. not really

If the earmark is not in the text of the approps bill (and the approps bill doesn't incorporate by reference the list of earmarks in the leg history) then its just an expression of Congress' wishes, not law. And the exec branch is under no legal obligation to comply with Congress' wishes that are not expressed in the statute itself.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Since when have earmarks not been part of the text?

Bush wants earmarks deleted so he can decide how the money will be spent.

[onenote]

25. for a long time now.

There are two types of "earmarks" -- "hard" earmarks, which are included in the text of an appropriations bill and are binding on the agency being funded. And "soft" earmarks, which generally are listed in an explanatory statement accompanying the appropriations bill and which are not binding, but which agencies historically have followed.

As the Congressional Research Service has found, most earmarks are of the latter type.

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-518.pdf

[hobbit709]

3. Will he apply this to all of them

or only to the ones benefiting a Democratic district? I don't remember the howler monkey going off about Sen. Stevens' bridge to nowhere.

[Toots]

5. Funny for six years he never said a word about "earmarks"

I guess that is because Republicans never used earmarks at all... D'oh..and people find this man at all credible..:crazy:

[Doctor_J]

8. Amen to that

what a partisan POS

[KingOfLostSouls]

6. prepare for war

its guaranteed he's only going to target democratic earmarks. not his own and republicans.

so now we know the strategy for the end game with this idiot.

[boricua79]

7. Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea?

Not the executive order tactic, but rather "Congress should them debate in the open and hold a public vote"?

I would think that any Executive move to check and balance the Legislative Branch's excesses is a good thing for our democracy.

I hate Bush. I hate his hypocrisy, and I hate everything he stands for....but I agree in principle that we should cut pork and pet projects out of legislation. That's about the only progressive, efficient-government action he's taken.

[Robbien]

11. Nope. Earmarks are how Congress pays lobbiests

for their contributions to campaign funds.

This effort by Bush will probably not work, but it is the first time in seven years that I support one of his shenanigans.

[boricua79]

20. thank you

I just think that, as dastardly as the man is, if he's willing to actually use his power to do something good for the way legislative pork is handled, I'm all for it.

Even Mussolini was good at one thing (making sure the trains were on time).

[inMD]

13. I agree with you

for this reason....

"Bush will issue an executive order tomorrow directing federal agencies to ignore any earmarks included only in committee reports, not in the text of legislation."

I am constantly amazed and amused by our politicians and what they have gotten away with for years of the fleecing of america. The legislation that is passed doesn't even contain some of the earmarks they want funded, they only exist in committee reports. IMO, then those earmarks were not passed because they were not in the legislation, duh.

As for his veto threat, Congress has the power of the purse as he has the power of the veto, but he certainly won't improve his opinion polls (I'd say they'll go lower, but I don't think they can drop any lower).

[Demeter]

9. Bush Can Piss Up A Rope

Congress has the power of the purse. Period.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. President oversteps bounds yet again. What else is new?

This "executive order" is in direct contravention to laws that he himself has signed. When will this shithead get that the Executive Branch (which includes the federal bureaucracy) is not exempt from the law? And more to the point: When will the Democratically controlled Congress finally grow a spine and stand up to the Terrorist-In-Chief?

[onenote]

22. not necessarily

Chimpy arguably has a point. If the earmark is specifically in the bill passed by Congress, then it must be enforced. But if its simply in the legislative history (and if there is no specific incorporation by reference of that legislative history in the bill), then the earmark is not "law" and the executive branch can follow it or not.

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Legislative history has NEVER had the force of law

Only bills which have been signed by the President. Since when has any branch of government -- or ordinary citizen, for that matter -- been required to observe something that used to be in a bill but was removed before it became law?

[sinkingfeeling]

12. And where was his 'executive order' in 2001 through 2006?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Pennies compared to the war and servicing the debt.

Smokescreen.

[Howardx]

15. NOW congress will stand up to bush! n/t

[focusfan]

17. they won't stand up to Bush

I think they are afraid of him

[focusfan]

16. he's a real son of a bitch

he really thinks he's King.

[InkAddict]

18. Yeah, he can start with porky black ops,

war contract overruns, and nosey public surveillance and info gathering. If he wants to talk to terrorists about these cut-backs, he should just call his VP.

[jwirr]

19. Sure! Now that they are going to Democrat's areas. He did not care

when they were building bridge to nowhere in Alaska for a pug.

[Historic NY]

21. Congress controls the purse strings not the executive...........

he needs more money to fund the billions going down the Iraqi sewer. How can he criticize the Democrats for members items when the Republican ear marks were at record highs. He can't even supply a budget that includes Iraq and must force Congress to fund it later. If Harry & Nancy had any intestinal fortitude they would simply say "no funds for you either that are not in your budget".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3159504

[Thothmes]

27. You hit the nail on the Head

It is the congresses responsibility to control the purse strings. Ear marks are an underhanded way of bribing special interests and local voters to ensure the reelection of the Congress person that requests them. Ear marks have gone to both Republicans and Democrats. The system stinks and should be ended. Under ideal circumstances a fiscally responsible Democratic Congress would amend the rules of the House and the Senate to do away with them.
However, I do not see that happening anytime soon. Just My Opinion

[Orsino]

26. So * is looking Iraq for ways to Iraq cut spending Iraq?

Wherever Iraq can he turn Iraq?