Ripping out earmarks
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that the line-item veto — which would let the president kill individual projects rather than veto an entire appropriations bill — violates the Constitution.
But does that mean the president has no options when it comes to the 9,000 “earmarks” with which members of Congress larded up the recently passed $516 billion omnibus spending bill? Maybe not.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that because the specific special-interest spending is not the language of the law itself — most of the earmarks are part of a 500-page committee report presented to the White House along with the appropriations bill — the executive branch is under no obligation to fund them.
“Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the money appropriated by Congress,” notes a Journal editorial. “But they could choose to spend those dollars on higher priorities … rather than on favors for special interests or political donors.”
The White House is reportedly considering this option — and wouldn’t it be wonderful if Mr. Bush actually followed through? Can you imagine the mewling and puking from both chambers — Republicans and Democrats alike — were the administration to put the kibosh on their vote-grabbing pork?
Actually, we don’t have to imagine. The Associated Press reports that when he was energy secretary, Bill Richardson incurred the wrath of porkmeister Robert Byrd after his agency was slow to release earmark funds.
“You’ve shown a contempt of Congress that borders on extreme arrogance,” Sen. Byrd, D-W.Va, told Mr. Richardson. “You will never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed.”
Ouch.
“This administration’s only got a year left on the calendar, but they’re going to want things,” Jim Dyer, former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee, told the AP about the dangers of messing with special-interest spending. “I would think they ought to tread very gingerly before they start ripping out member earmarks.”
But surely our elected officials understand that putting the interests of taxpayers above business-as-usual, pork-barrel logrolling would be best for the country.
Alas, we can dream.