Ignore the earmarks?
...Bush has little to lose from doing the right thing on the earmarks. He is not running for election and he has already demonstrated that he can win fights with Congress on appropriations. This is a fight that would enhance his legacy and demonstrate the kind of political courage he has shown in other areas.
What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn't want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks--the ones that aren't part of the actual budget law and were instead "air-dropped" into the committee report--aren't legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and "presented" to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. "President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote," says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. "He doesn't need a line-item veto."Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the dollars appropriated by Congress. But they could use the money higher priorities that would benefit all taxpayers, rather than on favors for special interests or political donors. For example, the $700,000 for a bike trail in Minneapolis could be used to rebuild the collapsed bridge in that city and to strengthen others. In addition, under such an executive order, future earmarks would likely have to go through committee hearings and would receive much greater scrutiny and publicity than they do now.
This possibility led Old Bull members of Congress to call the White House, complaining that such a move would threaten its relations with the legislative branch and threatening retribution. But none of those complaints or threats were made publicly. Members know how unpopular earmarking is with voters, and they also know that Mr. Bush could easily turn the tables on them if they actually engaged in petty revenge over the loss of their budgetary toys.
Congressional appropriators pooh-pooh the importance of any earmark reform. They note that earmarks represent less than 1% of the federal budget and are often worthy projects. But earmarks have a budgetary impact far beyond their dollar cost. "They are a gateway drug on the road to spending addiction," says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
...The White House is at a crossroads. "If Bush were to do the right thing on earmarks it would an attention-getting precedent that could make other budget reforms possible," says Alison Fraser, who heads up economic policy for the Heritage Foundation. "It's a legacy-building moment."
Her colleague at Heritage, director of congressional relations Mike Franc, pointed out in Human Events last week that Mr. Bush faces much the same kind of decision that Ronald Reagan did in 1981 when the air traffic controllers union struck the federal government. Reagan boldly fired all the controllers, "setting a standard for decisiveness and principled action that paid dividends" later on.
...
Outside of Congress it would be a popular move that would help Republicans in 2008. No one favors earmarks outside their area and unlike Congressmen, they do not feel the need for log rolling deals. John McCain is already using the fight against earmarks as part of is campaign. tha and his stand on the war are his two best traits. John Bohner has taken a similar stand and it is one reason why the Republican party affiliation numbers have recovered from their 2006 dip.
People forget that one of the reason the Republicans took over the House in 1994 is that the Perot fiscal discipline voters switched to the Republicans. We lost those voters in 2006, but this would be a good way to get them back.
Comments
Post a Comment