Ed Morrissey links to a WSJ editorial (can’t read it unless you have a subscription) in which they note that President Bush will consider the request of a Executive Order banning the funding of non-legislative earmarks. A earmark practice that allows members to add earmarks at the last minute to bills which allow the earmark to escape scrutiny:
Some in the White House fear that such a move would sour relations
with Congress, including GOP leaders who love their earmarks as much as
Democrats do. We hear that senior Republicans, especially in the
Senate, have told the White House that if Mr. Bush refuses to fund
these earmarks, he will be courting retribution. There’s a reason no
Members will make this threat in public, however. They know how
unpopular earmarking is with the voting public.Meanwhile, 19 taxpayer groups and individuals have written an open
letter to Mr. Bush picking up on our proposal. The letter asks the
President to issue “an executive order formally directing all Federal
agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee
reports and statements of managers. Such an action is within your
Constitutional powers, and would strike a blow for fiscal
responsibility now while setting a valuable precedent for the future.”Congress would be able to rewrite the budget to add earmarks in
formal legislative language. But at least then earmarks would be
challengeable on the floor. Asked by CNBC’s Larry Kudlow last week
about earmarks, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell replied that, “Well,
there certainly have been some bad earmarks in the past. But you’ve got
to remember, you can knock out all the earmarks, and it wouldn’t save
any money.”
The money is already appropriated for, we understand that. But at least these idiotic pet projects would be held up to the light of day and can then be challenged.
See author page
