Does President Bush intend to stick the knife in with a smile? He complimented Congress today on passage of an end-of-year spending bill with some funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as an energy bill and legislation to address the subprime mortgage problem. Regarding the omnibus spending bill, this is what he had to say (in part):
Congress reached agreement on a spending bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. They passed this bill without raising taxes. They eliminated many of the worst policy riders that would have never been approved through the ordinary legislative process. I appreciate that they included a down payment on the funding request for our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq without an artificial timetable of withdrawal. These brave men and women are risking their lives to protect us and they deserve the full support of the U.S. government.
But Andrew Roth of the Club for Growth notes some surprising comments regarding pork-barrel projects in the bill, which have attracted so much attention in the last days of the session just ended. Roth puts two and two together and comes up with...
This is president-ese for "through an executive order, I might tell the respective agencies to ignore the earmarks and to spend the money on higher priorities."
This is a HUGE deal. With his signature, Bush could effectively wipe away almost all of this year's earmarks. It would easily be the biggest achievement on wasteful spending of all time. And it would set a wonderful precedent for the future that would deter the abuse of earmarks by members of Congress.
This is certainly a plausible interpretation of the president's remarks. The vast majority of all pork-barrel projects are contained in committee reports, which do not have the force of law. The executive branch is not bound to accept them.
But while such a move would be completely legal, most members of the House and Senate would regard it as dirty pool if the president elected to disregard earmarks with little or no warning. While few Republicans would complain publicly about such a move, many still regard earmarks as one of the perks of office, and as an almost essential part of moving legislation on Capitol Hill. It is one of the Congress's fundamental "unwritten laws."
At the same time, eliminating earmarks with one bold stroke would earn the president great praise from fiscal conservatives -- including more than a few on Capitol Hill. It also might dramatically improve the damaged republican "brand," at least as far as spending goes.
President Bush has shown a willingness to gamble. I wonder if he's feeling lucky.
