Bush signs order to curb earmarks

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - President Bush took executive action on Tuesday to crack down on pork barrel practices in Congress. He promised to veto any spending bill that doesn't cut the number and cost of congressional pet projects in half.


The executive order Bush signed in the Oval Office orders federal agencies to ignore "earmarks" that aren't explicitly enacted into law, erasing a common practice in which lawmakers' projects are outlined in nonbinding documents that accompany legislation.

"That means that these projects never were voted on, never really saw the light of day," Bush said as he signed the order that he announced in his State of the Union address Monday night.

Bush, however, has disappointed some conservatives by backing away from a veiled threat issued last month in which he seemed to suggest he would kill some or all of the thousands of earmarks contained in last year's huge omnibus appropriations bill.

His executive order won't apply to the thousands of earmarks that accompanied a massive spending bill he signed last month.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_congress_pet_project

He basically punted it to his successor.

also earmarks are gone money-they aren't tracked like grants--anyone ever told you THAT before?

I think Ted Stevens is putting on his "Incredible Hulk" tie.

in control of Congress.

For someone who spent 7 years ballooning the deficit and debt into incomprehensibility, suddenly this clown feels the need to cut back on "pork"...didn't TX get enough?

For the record, I think "pork barrel" politics is disgusting, but it should be dealt with legislatively, not by executive fiat.

I think bush should return his salary and perks to the treasury, he has done nothing to earn the money, why should he get paid?

If the executive order applied to statutory earmarks (earmarks specifically included in the legislation voted into law by Congress), it would be a line item veto. But the executive order, as described, only applies to non-statutory earmarks -- directions that money appropriated by legislation with no specific instructions be used only for specific purposes set out not in the legislation but in the committee report (or in some cases not even in the committee report, just in a letter or phone call from a member or staffer to the agency).

Frankly, criticizing chimpy for this strikes me as bad politics.

Earmarks Include:

A) Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.

B) Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.

C) Funding provisions that do not name grantee, but are so specific that only one grantee can qualify for funding.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/ memoranda/ fy2007/ m07-09.pdf

This order cuts Congress further out of the loop, that's why it's wrong.

Because the only description of it that i've seen indicates that it applies only to non-statutory earmarks. As such, i don't believe it would apply to any of the examples you've given.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080129-5.html

Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

b) the term "earmark" means funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.


In the policy statement at the beginning, it talks about non-statutory, but I'm guessing that they are really using a loophole and identifying certain earmarks as non-statutory based on their interpretation. In the definition, it looks to me like he's basically saying he'll wipe out whatever he wants regardless of the intention of Congress. I'm no legal scholar, so I'll leave it to the experts to hash it all out.

The definition of earmark includes both statutory and non-statutory, but the restrictions on adhering to an earmark imposed by the exec order apply only to non-statutory earmarks.


Section 1. ......To ensure the proper use of taxpayer funds that are appropriated for Government programs and purposes, it is necessary that the number and cost of earmarks be reduced, that their origin and purposes be transparent, and that they be included in the text of the bills voted upon by the Congress and presented to the President. For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.

going to be considered non-statutory since it isn't implicity written out the "correct" way in the law based on their definition. I'm sure there's more legalese and something from the OLC stating what this executive order really means. My understanding of the budget process is there's a lot of legitmate budget detail that isn't implicity written out, so not considered statutory as well. There's a lot of budget processes that can't be written out for practicality sake. The spending is left to the department to decide.

I think this is another way to exert executive power and cause gridlock for the next President since this doesn't effect the Dubya administration at all.

The language is pretty clear on its face: "non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law"

And while the practice of putting "budgetary detail" into reports rather than the statutory language, its not necessarily a good practice. WHat it ends up allowing is for individual members and staffers to stick specific items into the report after the bill is voted on. If Congress wants to be specific, it should do so in the legislation. If it wants to give agencies discretion, it should do so. But pretending to give them discretion and then backdooring specific instruction isn't good government and has does not promote good government.

process obviously. This is an area ripe for abuse, but the Democratic Congress has halved the earmarks since they took over. There are some things that just can't be written into legislation, can you really detail every little thing that a dept would do with its budget? For matters of moving the wheels of government along, not everything is explicitly written out in statute. This is something that should be brought up in Congress and voted on, not decided by the President solely. That's why he has veto power. The Congress has the power of the purse, and this is a way for the President to curtail that power by his own decision. I think this borders on violating the seperation of powers, but it's one of those gray areas. Should there be reform, of course. Should the President be the one yielding this power alone? I don't think so. That's really where my argument lies.

he keeps requesting AND GETTING every couple of months for his stupid stupid stupid war

did I remember to mention that the war is stupid?

I wish he were consistent - that little bastard.

WASHINGTON - President Bush took executive action on Tuesday to crack down on dirty underwear practices in Congress. He promised to veto any spending bill that doesn't cut the number and cost of congressional skivvies stains in half.


The executive order Bush signed in the Offal Office orders federal agencies to ignore "hashmarks" that aren't explicitly printed into unmentionables, erasing a common practice in which lawmakers' dangleberries are smeared naturally on briefs that accompany legislation.

"That means that these underthings never were voted on, never really saw the light of day," Bush said as he signed the order that he announced in his State of the Union address Monday night, wearing only a pair of women's panties.

Bush, however, has disappointed some conservatives by backing away from a veiled threat issued last month in which he seemed to suggest he would kill some or all of the thousands of ripe hashmarks contained in last year's huge underwear and longjohns bill.

His executive order won't apply to the thousands of hashmarks that are smeared on a massive spending bill he signed last month, once again, wearing women's underthings. Laundry houses in D.C. are gearing up for the new policy, buying extra pre-soak and washboards to scrub the difficult stains from the crotches of bush's Washington cronies' drawers. Democrats responded with little comment, saying only that things were becoming incrementally excremental.