Posted on 01/31/2008 5:56:23 AM PST by Invisigoth
Most of Washington is too shallow to recognize a substantive policy move if it hits them in the face strapped to the grill of a truck. So after telling the nation not to bother watching President Bush’s final State of the Union address, the Washington press corps was too busy telling us how unsuccessful it was to tell us much of what he actually said.
You might want to go to WhiteHouse.gov and watch it yourself. Reading the post-speech analysis is a waste of your time. It wasn’t the greatest speech ever given by a long shot, but it did contain a highlight that could have an enormous and positive impact on the nation.
Earmarks are a sneaky method by which members of Congress secure spending measures for pet projects for their districts or other major political allies. The sneakiest form of earmark is one dropped into a conference report after the House and Senate have both already voted to approve a bill. This lets you get your pork without risking a debate or a vote on the floor.
Bush said on Monday that he is issuing an executive order telling federal agencies not to spend earmarks that come about in this way. He signed the order the following day.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Sure, just wait until the next bill and see how much power Bush’s words held.
If they are not “oficially” part of the bill, they are not “oficially” appropriated..............
Thanks for posting this. The executive order doesn’t totally make up for allowing the unprecedented growth of government during Bush’s tenure, but will go a long way toward reversing the trend by not allowing our congresscritters, R’s and D’s, to collude to obscure the truth.
It's been allowed to happen 7 times but this year, without being held accountable in the last year, it will end. I'd have more faith in an alcoholic bum on the street, begging for money just to eat, with the promise he'll never drink again.
The Presidents budget arrives on Capitol Hill full of earmarks — his. I know this first hand, having help build PresBuds when I worked on active duty in the Pentagon. The damn place is awash with defense lobbyist who specialize in lobbying the Executive Branch and have their pet projects well funded. You could call these “pioneer” marks because that’s just what they are.
To pretend the President’s budget is sacrosanct is, IMHO, poppycock.
Besides, it’s a dangerous tilting of checks and balances in favor of the Executive Branch. Does anyone think we really need that?
A lot of folks think that the adjustments made to the President’s budget cost additional money (they don’t). The truth is this: they amount to less than one percent of federal spending. Again, less than one percent.
Consider this: what better way to avoid scrutiny over the real killers, like social security, or Medicare prescription drug plan funding, than to divert attention by bashing the Congress over what they are constitutionally charged to do.?
Demagoguery, anyone?
If Bush’s last act in the White House, is to pardon the two Border Guards, then I will change my opinion of him as being more the El President de la Mexico than the U.S.
Yet he commits 2 Billion dollars to fight global warming...
Once again, President Bush has shown his integrity.
Thirty billion more dollars for AIDS in Africa deadend any further hearing.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but where exactly is Congress charged with attaching earmarks to BILLS ALREADY VOTED ON?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961185/posts
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1757.cfm
Earmarking is a corrupting process. It effectively gives individual lawmakers their own pot of tax dollars to distribute to organizations of their choosing. So rather than file an application, many federal grant seekers today have to make a political donation. Lobbyists promote their matchmaker role, effectively auctioning government grants to the highest bidder. As a result, the FBI has launched several corruption investigations to determine whether lawmakers based earmark decisions on personal profit.
Because they are outside the competitive application process, earmarks are distributed with little or no government oversight or accountability. Most earmarks are not fully audited, and the result has been cases of earmarked funds being embezzled by their recipients.
Eliminating earmarks would not reduce FY 2008 grant spending, but it would ensure that grants are distributed by merit rather than politics and would stifle the enormous appetite for federal largesse. Worthy projects should have no trouble securing funding based on merit; only the unworthy projects would lose funding.
Cow dung, it doesn't take effect until he is out of office, meaningless grandstanding.
Bump for further study. I used to scan the Federal Register for the section on Executive Orders, but haven’t done that for a decade. It is fascinating to see how the process works.
Sorry, meaningless. He won’t apply it to the stuff they just passed, and it only applies to appropriations and he won’t see another appropriation. And the next president can revoke the rule.
If he was serious, he’d have done it to the bills that just came up for THIS year. Why won’t he — it’s not like he needs votes for re-election.
And why didn’t he do this earlier? (Hint: he leaves office next January).
The suggestion that the MSM didn’t tell us about the earmark comment is also wrong. I read in the newspaper, saw it on TV, and heard a discussion of it on NPR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.