Post by jgaffney on May 31, 2008 23:52:50 GMT -5
This is from today's Wall Street Journal:
I still remember Nancy Pelosi standing at the podium and telling everyone that this was going to be the most ethical Congress in history. It seems that her promises are just that: history.
Remember those Congressional pledges of earmark reform? Democrats are hoping you don't, as they try to pull a fast one and evade President Bush's pledge to block these special-interest spending projects slipped into legislation without scrutiny.
The battle is over the $601 billion defense authorization bill, which the House passed last week, 384-23. Earmarks are supposed to be included in the text of legislation. Instead, the Members have "airdropped," in Beltway parlance, a huge number of them into the conference report that accompanies the bill. And, to ensure that the money is spent on these dark-of-night additions, the Members have included language insisting that federal agencies do so.
This is a blatant attempt to override Mr. Bush's executive order earlier this year on earmarks. That order took direct aim at "airdropped" earmarks on grounds that they lack the force of law. If Members think their projects are defensible, then put them into actual legislation and vote on them. But because this can be politically embarrassing – think "bridge to nowhere" – Members prefer to slip their pork into the conference reports that offer instructions on implementation. These reports are written by staff members, aren't debated or voted on by Members, and aren't signed by the President.
In theory, federal agencies could ignore these earmarks. In practice, agencies go along for fear of retribution in the next round of budgeting. Mr. Bush's executive order was intended to stop this Congressional intimidation and force more spending transparency.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats rode to the majority in 2006 in part on their pledge to reform runaway earmarking. They've since backtracked, instituting weak rules on transparency, and refusing a challenge to join Republicans in a one-year earmark moratorium. Now that Democrats run the show, they are as eager as Tom DeLay to spend and re-elect. Democrats are so determined to keep on earmarking that they refused even to allow a vote on an amendment by Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) to kill the provision overriding the President's order.
The White House says Mr. Bush will veto the bill if it includes this new Democratic license for secret earmarking. If House Republicans want to improve their standing with the voting public this election year, they'll also take on this Beltway business as usual.
The battle is over the $601 billion defense authorization bill, which the House passed last week, 384-23. Earmarks are supposed to be included in the text of legislation. Instead, the Members have "airdropped," in Beltway parlance, a huge number of them into the conference report that accompanies the bill. And, to ensure that the money is spent on these dark-of-night additions, the Members have included language insisting that federal agencies do so.
This is a blatant attempt to override Mr. Bush's executive order earlier this year on earmarks. That order took direct aim at "airdropped" earmarks on grounds that they lack the force of law. If Members think their projects are defensible, then put them into actual legislation and vote on them. But because this can be politically embarrassing – think "bridge to nowhere" – Members prefer to slip their pork into the conference reports that offer instructions on implementation. These reports are written by staff members, aren't debated or voted on by Members, and aren't signed by the President.
In theory, federal agencies could ignore these earmarks. In practice, agencies go along for fear of retribution in the next round of budgeting. Mr. Bush's executive order was intended to stop this Congressional intimidation and force more spending transparency.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats rode to the majority in 2006 in part on their pledge to reform runaway earmarking. They've since backtracked, instituting weak rules on transparency, and refusing a challenge to join Republicans in a one-year earmark moratorium. Now that Democrats run the show, they are as eager as Tom DeLay to spend and re-elect. Democrats are so determined to keep on earmarking that they refused even to allow a vote on an amendment by Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) to kill the provision overriding the President's order.
The White House says Mr. Bush will veto the bill if it includes this new Democratic license for secret earmarking. If House Republicans want to improve their standing with the voting public this election year, they'll also take on this Beltway business as usual.
I still remember Nancy Pelosi standing at the podium and telling everyone that this was going to be the most ethical Congress in history. It seems that her promises are just that: history.
