Democrats take ‘offense’

Democrats grabbed control of Congress in 2006 thanks in part to their aggressive rhetoric about a Republican “culture of corruption.”

So when the president on Monday night raced to the front lines in the battle against earmarks — the pet projects members of Congress slip into spending bills as a reward to favored campaign contributors or constituents — you might think those very same Democrats would welcome him with open arms.

If so, you probably still believe the civics book explanation of “how a bill becomes a law.”

The domestic centerpiece of George W. Bush’s final State of the Union address Monday was a pledge to stand up against the congressional penchant to lard up spending bills with earmarks. The president said he would veto any appropriation measure this year that doesn’t reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half — and he announced he’ll issue an executive order directing federal agencies to ignore such requests if they aren’t specifically mentioned in the spending bill, but instead listed in accompanying backup reports.

This is, of course, too little, too late. The president could have — and should have — been this forceful six or seven years ago.

But the reaction from Democrats was instructive. The Senate’s chief porkmeister, West Virginia’s Robert Byrd, waxed on about the Constitution and about members of Congress being best able to determine local needs. Other Democrats “reacted angrily” (the Los Angeles Times), with “skepticism” (The Washington Post) or “took offense” (the Los Angeles Times again).

“I found it to be very combative and confrontational,” said Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo. “Right out of the box, he started off with everything he’s going to veto.”

Some Democrats even hinted that, rather than comply with the president’s demand, they might delay passing spending bills until after the election in hopes that a member of their own party will win the White House and abet their penchant for pork.

Yes, congressional Republicans deserve much of the blame for the exploding number of earmarks. Yes, the president merits heat for not having acted sooner.

But Democrats were never serious about tackling earmarks. It was all campaign balloon juice, as evidenced by the fact that upon taking the majority, they immediately began watering down many of their vaunted earmark reforms.

And now that Mr. Bush has spelled out his intentions, we’ll again see precisely how serious Democrats really are when it comes to dismantling that Republican “culture of corruption” — or whether they’re more intent on simply protecting their own.