Bush Could Nuke Earmarks

President Bush made a threat in his news conference yesterday that has the Dems steaming. He implied that he might issue an executive order that would effectively cancel thousands of earmarks contained in the omnibus spending bill that was just passed:

The White House threatened yesterday to cancel thousands of pet projects that Congress inserted into a massive spending bill before leaving town this week, a move that could provoke a fierce battle with lawmakers in both parties who jealously guard their ability to steer money to favored purposes.

At an end-of-the-year news conference, President Bush chastised Democratic leaders for failing to live up to their campaign promise to curb so-called earmarks and said he has ordered his budget director "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." Aides later said those options would include simply disregarding earmarks not included in binding legislative language. ....

His sharp message on earmarks, though, stirred consternation on Capitol Hill and anticipation among fiscal conservatives. Calling Congress irresponsible for lumping 11 spending bills into a single, 1,400-page measure nearly three months into the fiscal year, he added, "Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks that Congress included." While Congress "made some progress" curbing pet projects, he said that "they have not made enough progress."

Bush said he asked Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to draft possible actions to take, but he would not elaborate. One option, aides said, would be to ignore the vast majority of earmarks that are included only in conference reports rather than in the appropriations bill itself. Although traditionally honored, language in such reports is not legally binding.

"There's always been an opportunity for the president to issue an executive order essentially canceling most of the earmarks," said Brian M. Riedl, a Heritage Foundation scholar who issued a memo outlining ways to do so. "Generally, it's been perceived as a declaration of nuclear war for the president not to spend congressional earmarks. But with more than 11,000 of them, it seems like the president might consider it time."

Under such a scenario, the appropriated money would still be spent on the purpose in the bill but not necessarily on the intended recipient. Critics complain that earmarks are a way to funnel money to projects or organizations without a review of the merits. Another option that Bush aides said they are reviewing is interpreting vaguely worded earmarks in a different way from what their sponsors intended.

I learned something about earmarks that I didn't previously know. Most of the earmarks are made in the conference report, not the actual language of the bill. By gentleman's agreement the president goes along with the earmarks as outlined in the conference report and congressmen get their little pet projects.

The president, however, is not bound to spend the money except as outlined in the language of the actual bill. He could therefore order his department heads to ignore the earmarks in the conference report altogether. The money would still be in each department's budget, but it could be spent however the department wanted. Goodbye Hillary's hippie Woodstock museum. Goodbye Charles Rangel Center for Race-Based Politics. Goodbye Harry Reid History of Las Vegas Questionable Real Estate Deals Museum.

If he goes through with this threat, and I hope he does, there's will be a nuclear explosion on Capitol Hill as congressmen in both parties watch their precious little home district projects evaporate. If you think Pelosi and Reid were mad before, watch out.

The Democrats promised earmark reform when they took office and they have failed miserably. What the president might do is real earmark reform, and I encourage him to go for it!