In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush said all future earmarks that are not passed as law will be ignored by the Executive branch.
This is clearly his right: Congress can pass laws, but they have no other power to dictate how the Executive does its job. If a bill's report says "give $30 billion on Acme Inc. to make anti-terrorist widgets," but that is not in the actual bill, then it is not law, and not binding on the Executive.
A spokesman for Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) says:
It is hypocritical that President Bush is considering issuing an executive order on a spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress with bipartisan support while failing to do so with spending bills passed by Republican Congresses in the past.
I don't know if hypocritical is quite the right word (it depends on his reasons for not doing so before), but I mostly agree: my first reaction was "finally, even if it is several years late." And it may not have any effect at all, if no more spending bills reach Bush. So it is an essentially valid criticism of the President, to my eyes, but it doesn't argue against what he did (just what he didn't).
That's OK, the Republicans offer such criticism, via spokesman for Thad Cochran (R-MS):
Just as Congress takes the president's budget request under very careful advisement, so should the president honor the report language Congress writes to accompany bill text. Requiring all budget specifics to be included in bill text would be highly inefficient and would cripple an already difficult budget process.
I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for someone who complains that following the Constitution is inconvenient. Congress takes action through passing bills. There should be no shortcuts, period, because every shortcut they take is less power the citizens have.
For what it's worth, my second favorite moment of the address was when Bush said, "On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says." And then during the applause, he looked down with disdain toward the front row, at Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote a book explaining why he ignores the Constitution.
OK, I am the one who looked at Breyer with disdain at that moment, but still.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Email ThisPOWER FORBIDDEN TO CONGRESS
Article 1, Section 9, [7] No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Specific spending directives not included in the actual spending bill are unconstitutional. No Congress should have been allowed to spend via "conference reports" which were never part of the bill that Congress voted on and approved.
All representatives took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I wonder how many have actually read it. If they had, they would have demanded of themselves that the appropriations must be included in the bill.
I have read the Constitution and ethics is not a specific requirement of our leaders, so I guess being unethical isn't unconstitutional.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 29, 2008 11:35 AMYour best comment was that you have no sympathy for those who complain about the inconvenience of the Constitution.
I don't care if they never pass another dime of legislation. We could largely get by without the Federal Government doing jack, and we'd never know the difference. So much of our government is waste. Someone has to put their foot down on out of control spending, pork/earmarks, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Drugs, etc.
Many of these problems even lie with Bush. We are all responsible to some extent in that both Republicans and Democrats from most states have been complicit in watching the federal government expand massively over the last half century or so.
It's time to realize that the gig is up, and that we will face massive future financial crisis if we don't start minimizing the bureaucracy.
But the problem is still largely on the Progressive left, where there is no apology or even consideration for continual expansion. In fact, the want to accelerate disastrous financial policy like Social Security by piling on Socialized Healthcare.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 29, 2008 11:41 AMI'm lovin' it!
I also enjoyed Bush's comment aboout those who say to go ahead and raise their taxes, "Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."
those are 2 phrases that come to mind when i think of bush, jr.
what is going to happen to the $24m for the laura bush librarian fund earmark?
Posted by: dinesh on January 29, 2008 12:51 PMAt the risk of incurring the wrath of my fellow conservatives, let's not forget that even people who pay no income taxes pay into SSI and Medicare. Well over a quarter of 1040 returns filed today are from filers who pay no income taxes, but they do pay SSI and Medicare. With their employer contribution that is over 15% of their meager earnings, and that can add up to well over $300 very quickly. And given that SSI and Medicare are both pay as you go programs with surpluses paid out on other non-SSI and non-Medicare government spending, SSI and Medicare are closer to another form of income tax than government would want to admit. It's simply a guaranteed tax with no deductions or exemptions - except for some public employees.
If this plan is a stimulus package, where better to send some unfunded government largess, but back to the folks that most definitely will spend it, and not put it into a savings account or some other investment that will distance its impact from boosting the economy?
As for earmarks, Bush has the luxury now of going after them, since his lame-duck status leaves him with no need of even our big-spending Republicans. He's won the Iraq War argument for now, and any other domestic agenda he might wish to follow is a non-starter with Democrats in pure "politics over policy" mode. Like anything else in our esteemed congress, earmarks are just bribes to get votes. Bush doesn't need votes on policy that Pelosi and Reid will kill before it goes anywhere.
Posted by: MJC on January 29, 2008 01:26 PMOK. Eliminate it.
Your turn.
/not holding my breath
Posted by: jimg on January 29, 2008 03:18 PMI cannot believe the pork she gave the dude and dudette to put internet on the ferries.
Give a campaign donation of 10k, get 5 to 50 million in return. Not a bad deal unlesss you are a taxpayer
Posted by: GS on January 29, 2008 03:25 PMWHAT... I don't get it. Isn't most lib's like say Dinesh always crying for more government money.
So GW gave you what you wanted in 2004 and you still cry.
Does the saying Hypocritcal fit?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 29, 2008 03:38 PMPerhaps I'm in error but I believe the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries is entirely privately funded.
http://www.laurabushfoundation.org/web2/faq_07.htm
I could be wrong but I would challenge Dinesh to provide us some concrete evidence to support his facts.
Not the same thing as the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 29, 2008 04:19 PMGet rid of it. Period.
Posted by: Shaun on January 29, 2008 05:33 PM1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"
example used in a sentence.
by presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government in u.s. history after representing a party known for fiscal conservatism and small government, the republicans, led by president bush and a republican-controlled house and senate, established themselves as hypocrites.
its funny how many of you still beat up on dems as spend-aholics. the facts would suggest that any party in power cannot help but to reap the wealth that power can bring. it is not partisan politics, it is human nature.
Posted by: dinesh on January 29, 2008 06:19 PMThe Bush Administration is responsible for 45% of the National Debt during its "reign of terror". I vote Republican most of the time, but have felt increasingly challenged since 2003. The President is well on the way to spending us into oblivion with his phony compassionate conservative - big government approach - fortunately he has only 11 more months. I am fairly certain that he is the biggest spender as President in US History. He could have done alot to prevent that, and gave it lip service but little or no action. He could have vetoed many bills that were pork laden in both terms, but didn't. His attempt to make the tax cuts permanent will fall short largely due to his financial mismanagement. BTW- the reason McCain voted against his tax cuts previously was really because there were no spending cuts - seems like a good reason to me, in spite of what the conservative talking heads try to say. They and Bush are on the wrong side when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Democrats in general are not much different though because they embrace large government, but at least attempt to look at budget balancing by tax increases to justify spending increases. Finally, Congress is the body that has authorized spending at a record rate, enabled by the President.
Posted by: KS on January 29, 2008 07:12 PMSince Steve Breyer looks at the Constitution with a fair amount of disdain, I guess you're even!
I looked hard but didn't see that hottie Ruth Bader Ginsberg, so all the romantic hopes of the HA Happy Hooligans were dashed tonight!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on January 29, 2008 10:10 PMMy but you are a partisan little priss aren't you?
Spending waya our future is a bipartisan affair. Whether for show or not, the bottom line is that I do hope Bush goes through with this. And yes I am consistent in calling members of both parties on this - just ask FORMER Republican state rep Beverl Woods about that!
When Republicans spend like Democrats, they are no longer Republicans - they gotta go. Can you say the same with respect to yurself and Democrats?
Posted by: pbj on January 29, 2008 10:26 PMyes, i am equally suspicious of democrats. i just find the self-imposed blindness of republicans with regard to their own party particularly funny, especially on this site.
face it, bush and the republicans blew it from 01-06. their supporters now have to explain away actions rather than tout successes.
in light of the facts, i don't understand how republicans can suggest they should be trusted on fiscal issues. their actions are inconsistent with their words/beliefs (see def of hypocrite).
Posted by: dinesh on January 30, 2008 09:59 AMby presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government in u.s. history after representing a party known for fiscal conservatism and small government, the republicans, led by president bush and a republican-controlled house and senate, established themselves as hypocrites.
False. The Republicans who expanded government established themselves as hypocrites. The majority of Republicans who opposed that expansion did not. It is not, as you say, "the Republicans." Now you are just making things up.
Further, the claim of "hypocrisy" I was referring to was completely different: Byrd's spokesman was claiming it was hypocritical to try to curb spending now, as opposed to before. No, it's not.
its funny how many of you still beat up on dems as spend-aholics. the facts would suggest that any party in power cannot help but to reap the wealth that power can bring. it is not partisan politics, it is human nature.
No, it is not human nature. it is the nature of SOME people. Perhaps most. But not all, and that is why the majority of Republicans are angry at the leaders of the Republican Party, because they have failed to lead in this area (as well as others).
And further, dinesh, pretty much everyone here who attacks the Dems for spending also attack Republicans who do the same.
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 11:52 AMface it, bush and the republicans blew it from 01-06. their supporters now have to explain away actions rather than tout successes.
Except, that's clearly not true, especially on this site, dinesh. You regularly see people blaming Bush and the Republicans in Congress for things they did that we believe to be wrong, like their high spending.
in light of the facts, i don't understand how republicans can suggest they should be trusted on fiscal issues. their actions are inconsistent with their words/beliefs (see def of hypocrite).
Some of them, yes. Not most of them. Unfortunately, it was the ones in power, but it is still clearly false to say that most Republicans are in favor of what they did, or are defending it.
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 12:07 PMi don't know if i can access this blog's archives, but i recall seemingly unqualified support of bush and the republican congress, with the primary exception of getting rid of certain r's (the pedophile). i recall that the r's were so unified in their contempt of kerry and dems that the overarching focus was outward, not inward on the significant flaws in the republican party.
Posted by: dinesh on January 31, 2008 11:02 AMAll the archives are all here. And if you recall that, then you saw only what you wanted see.
I already gave you a prominent example (and I am not going to keep finding them for you, but here's another ... I can do this all day, but I don't have the time, and I don't think there's a point at which you would be convinced anyway), and I talked about it a lot myself at the time (so much so that I said, publicly, that I wished there was a legitimate challenge to Bush for the nomination), and I talked to many conservatives at the time who felt the same way.
Yes, it wasn't the most prominent thing in 2004 -- no one said otherwise -- because no matter how much Bush sucked, Kerry sucked more. But that beating Kerry was the main focus doesn't mean we just gladly accepted everything about Bush and the other free-spending Republicans. To claim the crticism didn't exist or wasn't common is pure fancy.
Posted by: pudge on January 31, 2008 11:24 AMhere's a post right on point re federal spending from this blog. check out the comments.
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006452.html
i am well aware that some on the right were appalled by the federal situation. it turns out that they were not well represented.
put simply, bush and his party were wrong on many fronts, including iraq, federal spending, torture and the legality of wiretapping. it's really appalling and should provoke more outrage (see paul's candidacy).
despite what you might think of me based on my post, i am a firm believer in accountability, regardless of party affiliation. in our binary system, that means if the party in power has failed to deliver, they must be replaced by the opposition. unfortunately partisan loyalty prevents this form of accountability.
what i find interesting also is that there hasn't been an adequate explanation of why federal republicans acted they way they did between 01-06. after all, this was only 6 years after the 94 movement, which was tied closely to republican principles. what went wrong? how can individual leaders (beside bush and mccain) evade responsibility?
Posted by: dinesh on January 31, 2008 01:05 PMWhich is what I have been saying, and you have been disagreeing with, when you say things like "unqualified support of bush and the republican congress."
put simply, bush and his party were wrong on many fronts, including iraq, federal spending, torture
I agree with McCain on all of those, which means I believe Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do. I'd say you are not putting it simply, but simplistically.
and the legality of wiretapping
This is, in fact, something that NO ONE knows who is right or wrong about. There are strong legal arguments on both sides, and it can only be resolved one way or the other by the Supreme Court. I personally tend to fall down more on the "not allowed" side, but I can't dismiss the strong case on the "allowed" side without much greater study, as that would be dishonest of me, because it clearly has significant merit.
despite what you might think of me based on my post, i am a firm believer in accountability
Good. So you don't mind me holding you accountable for your misleading statements about "unqualified support." :-)
in our binary system, that means if the party in power has failed to deliver, they must be replaced by the opposition. unfortunately partisan loyalty prevents this form of accountability.
Nonense. In our most recent national election, Republican partisans across the country REJECTED the Republican party and stayed home. You're saying what happened was prevented from happening, but if that were the case, then it didn't happen, but it did happen.
what i find interesting also is that there hasn't been an adequate explanation of why federal republicans acted they way they did between 01-06
Again, it's because you aren't looking. There are many theories. None of them matter to me, though: if you don't follow the principles, you are unfit for office as a Republican. I don't really care why.
Which is what I have been saying, and you have been disagreeing with, when you say things like "unqualified support of bush and the republican congress."
despite what you might think of me based on my post, i am a firm believer in accountability
Good. So you don't mind me holding you accountable for your misleading statements about "unqualified support." :-)
in our binary system, that means if the party in power has failed to deliver, they must be replaced by the opposition. unfortunately partisan loyalty prevents this form of accountability.
In our most recent national election, Republican partisans across the country REJECTED the Republican party and stayed home. You're saying what happened was prevented from happening, but if that were the case, then it didn't happen, but it did happen.
what i find interesting also is that there hasn't been an adequate explanation of why federal republicans acted they way they did between 01-06
Again, it's because you aren't looking. There are many theories. None of them matter to me, though: if you don't follow the principles, you are unfit for office as a Republican. I don't really care why.