Sure, just wait until the next bill and see how much power Bush’s words held.
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.
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.
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.