S
Sid9
Guest
January 29, 2008
Washington Memo
Question of Timing on Bush's Push on Earmarks
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON - Now that his friends have been kicked out of the bar, President
Bush has decided it is time for last call.
While his Republican allies ran Congress for the first six years of his
presidency, Mr. Bush showed no compunction about helping the Republicans who
controlled Congress pour out federal money for members' pet projects.
He signed spending bills containing more than 50,000 earmarks worth more
than $100 billion to pay for pet projects like a new facade for some local
landmark, a new lane for a local highway or a weapons deal for a contractor
who just happened to contribute to an influential congressman.
Tucked into the endnotes of complex spending bills at the request of
individual lawmakers with almost no oversight, such items have contributed
to a mounting pileup of waste and corruption, recently sending the lobbyist
Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy Cunningham, a California
Republican, to jail.
Now, in his last year in the White House and with his party out of power on
Capitol Hill, Mr. Bush declared in his State of the Union address Monday
night that, "The people's trust in their government is undermined by
Congressional earmarks."
He threatened to veto future spending bills unless Congress cut in half the
number of earmarks, which now total more than 10,000 items and nearly $20
billion a year.
What is more, he told federal agencies to ignore any earmarks attached in
the endnotes or "reports" appended to spending bills, a practice that makes
them immune to amendment or excision in debate on the floor - to the fury of
their critics.
The late timing of his tough talk, though, drew mostly gentle derision from
those critics,
"It is unfortunate," said Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican
who often rails against earmarks.
Mr. Bush was notably silent on the subject until after his fellow
Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. And, now
that Mr. Bush's power has waned, his threats are almost certain not to
matter.
As lawmakers know, earmarks - which make up less up less than 1 percent of
the federal budget - have incalculable political value. Congressional
leaders award or withhold them to reward or punish lawmakers. Incumbents
like to use federal money to curry favor with donors and constituents.
When Republicans ran Congress, "we honed the practice," Mr. Flake said. But
complaining about earmarks is much easier when your party is not writing the
spending bills.
"I worry that earmark reform is something that Congressional minorities will
always be the only ones to call for, kind of like a balanced budget," said
Brian M. Riedl, a critic of earmarks at the Heritage Foundation.
Dick Armey, a former leader of the House Republicans who has become a vocal
critic of earmarks, said that until the party's ouster from the majority the
Republican speaker and Senate majority leader told the president, in effect,
"This pork is our deal."
With Democrats in charge, Mr. Armey said, "He looks at it now and he says,
'The speaker and the majority leader are not going to help me on my deal
anyway, so I might as well fight with them.'
"You have got a group of people that for the last 12 years have been saying
to their members, 'If you think you are having trouble with your
re-election, come to us and we will help you out in the appropriations
process,' " he added, arguing that lawmakers in both parties had "become
addicted" to earmarks.
In practical terms, Congress may be so distracted that it does not send Mr.
Bush any spending bills for 2009 - a common occurrence in presidential
election years. Or Congressional Democrats may wait for a new president to
sign the bills.
"He is probably not going to get the bills to veto," said Steve Ellis, a
spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks earmarks.
And despite Mr. Bush's instructions to ignore earmarks not included in the
formal text of bills - and thus immune to excision or amendment in floor
debate - federal agencies may still choose to spend the money because the
agencies will need to deal with the same Congressional committees for future
budget requests, analysts and lawmakers said.
And Congress has an easy loophole: lawmakers might include a sentence in a
bill's text giving its endnotes or "report" the full force of law, thus
complying with the president's requirements without subjecting the earmarks
to additional debate.
In 2006, Democrats, then in the minority, made earmark overhaul a campaign
theme. Last year, they passed laws requiring lawmakers for the first time to
take public responsibility for the earmarks they added to spending bills. On
Tuesday, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the House
Democrats' campaign committee, called Mr. Bush "late to game."
"When the president and the Republican Congress had the power to address
this, they did nothing," Mr. Van Hollen said.
Since the Democrats took control, however, House Republicans have become the
most vocal critics of earmarks. Mr. Bush's embrace of overhauling earmarks
comes as House Republicans are calling on the Democratic leaders to join
them in a moratorium on such projects.
The House Republican conference, however, blocked a proposal by its leaders
to stop seeking earmarks voluntarily as a way for the party to claim the
higher ground. Under a longstanding agreement, the minority party is allowed
to distribute to its members about 40 percent of the total spent on
earmarks, and Republican House members did not want to give up their share.
"It is unfortunate" that the president is acting so late, Mr. Flake said,
"But there is also the irony of saying, please save us from ourselves, as if
we need adult supervision."
Washington Memo
Question of Timing on Bush's Push on Earmarks
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON - Now that his friends have been kicked out of the bar, President
Bush has decided it is time for last call.
While his Republican allies ran Congress for the first six years of his
presidency, Mr. Bush showed no compunction about helping the Republicans who
controlled Congress pour out federal money for members' pet projects.
He signed spending bills containing more than 50,000 earmarks worth more
than $100 billion to pay for pet projects like a new facade for some local
landmark, a new lane for a local highway or a weapons deal for a contractor
who just happened to contribute to an influential congressman.
Tucked into the endnotes of complex spending bills at the request of
individual lawmakers with almost no oversight, such items have contributed
to a mounting pileup of waste and corruption, recently sending the lobbyist
Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy Cunningham, a California
Republican, to jail.
Now, in his last year in the White House and with his party out of power on
Capitol Hill, Mr. Bush declared in his State of the Union address Monday
night that, "The people's trust in their government is undermined by
Congressional earmarks."
He threatened to veto future spending bills unless Congress cut in half the
number of earmarks, which now total more than 10,000 items and nearly $20
billion a year.
What is more, he told federal agencies to ignore any earmarks attached in
the endnotes or "reports" appended to spending bills, a practice that makes
them immune to amendment or excision in debate on the floor - to the fury of
their critics.
The late timing of his tough talk, though, drew mostly gentle derision from
those critics,
"It is unfortunate," said Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican
who often rails against earmarks.
Mr. Bush was notably silent on the subject until after his fellow
Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. And, now
that Mr. Bush's power has waned, his threats are almost certain not to
matter.
As lawmakers know, earmarks - which make up less up less than 1 percent of
the federal budget - have incalculable political value. Congressional
leaders award or withhold them to reward or punish lawmakers. Incumbents
like to use federal money to curry favor with donors and constituents.
When Republicans ran Congress, "we honed the practice," Mr. Flake said. But
complaining about earmarks is much easier when your party is not writing the
spending bills.
"I worry that earmark reform is something that Congressional minorities will
always be the only ones to call for, kind of like a balanced budget," said
Brian M. Riedl, a critic of earmarks at the Heritage Foundation.
Dick Armey, a former leader of the House Republicans who has become a vocal
critic of earmarks, said that until the party's ouster from the majority the
Republican speaker and Senate majority leader told the president, in effect,
"This pork is our deal."
With Democrats in charge, Mr. Armey said, "He looks at it now and he says,
'The speaker and the majority leader are not going to help me on my deal
anyway, so I might as well fight with them.'
"You have got a group of people that for the last 12 years have been saying
to their members, 'If you think you are having trouble with your
re-election, come to us and we will help you out in the appropriations
process,' " he added, arguing that lawmakers in both parties had "become
addicted" to earmarks.
In practical terms, Congress may be so distracted that it does not send Mr.
Bush any spending bills for 2009 - a common occurrence in presidential
election years. Or Congressional Democrats may wait for a new president to
sign the bills.
"He is probably not going to get the bills to veto," said Steve Ellis, a
spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks earmarks.
And despite Mr. Bush's instructions to ignore earmarks not included in the
formal text of bills - and thus immune to excision or amendment in floor
debate - federal agencies may still choose to spend the money because the
agencies will need to deal with the same Congressional committees for future
budget requests, analysts and lawmakers said.
And Congress has an easy loophole: lawmakers might include a sentence in a
bill's text giving its endnotes or "report" the full force of law, thus
complying with the president's requirements without subjecting the earmarks
to additional debate.
In 2006, Democrats, then in the minority, made earmark overhaul a campaign
theme. Last year, they passed laws requiring lawmakers for the first time to
take public responsibility for the earmarks they added to spending bills. On
Tuesday, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the House
Democrats' campaign committee, called Mr. Bush "late to game."
"When the president and the Republican Congress had the power to address
this, they did nothing," Mr. Van Hollen said.
Since the Democrats took control, however, House Republicans have become the
most vocal critics of earmarks. Mr. Bush's embrace of overhauling earmarks
comes as House Republicans are calling on the Democratic leaders to join
them in a moratorium on such projects.
The House Republican conference, however, blocked a proposal by its leaders
to stop seeking earmarks voluntarily as a way for the party to claim the
higher ground. Under a longstanding agreement, the minority party is allowed
to distribute to its members about 40 percent of the total spent on
earmarks, and Republican House members did not want to give up their share.
"It is unfortunate" that the president is acting so late, Mr. Flake said,
"But there is also the irony of saying, please save us from ourselves, as if
we need adult supervision."
