Bush Pledges Crackdown On Earmarks

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Angel Heart, Jan 29, 2008.

  1. Angel Heart
    Offline

    Angel Heart Conservative Hippie

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Thanks Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Ratings:
    +341
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/...509_page2.shtml

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Well, better late then never.
     
  3. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Not that anyone cares, I suppose, but posting the entire text of the article is a copyright violation. I think the users here should have enough respect for the site admins (and terms of service) not to do that. A lot of people do it, not just Angel, so I'm not singling her out, just keep forgetting to mention it. A lot of people don't realize its a violation.

    It's about time Bush tried to do something about spending. I don't think it will help his record as a bigger-government President too much though.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    i have to say when i heard him mention he would sign an executive order preventing the dispersement of earmarks that havent been debated on the floor i was incredibly pissed. Not because i support earmarks, but because if its just that easy to do why the heck hasnt it been done years ago?!
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    That's easy... it's because he's trying to be successful at something...anything. And, besides,

    I don't think he can do it anyway. It's a backdoor line-item veto and it's illegal.

    So there ya go.
     
  6. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,776
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,287
    I tend to agree, he is trying to provide material for his many apologists. His mention of children surprised me, all of a sudden he has a heart! What a weird person he is.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    It is NOT illegal. However he can not prevent the money from being transfered to the programs. That money though can not be used for any other purpose UNLESS Congress agrees to it. I do not know but suspect as long as the Departments do NOT order the projects or items in the earmarks the money just never transfers, not sure how that effects the supposed counting of Government spending though.

    Now I do agree depending on the wording in the appropriation the President may not be able to prevent some of it and in the future Congress will just ensure the wording IS there.

    As for the American people, if they really cared about this issue the President could veto those bills and the Congress would get innudated with angry demands by voters to NOT put them back. We all konw THAT won't happen.
     
  8. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    I don't think it equates to a line-item veto because it doesn't effect statutes or legislation voted on and passed by Congress. Congress often puts earmarks in non-statutory sources, and Executive agencies in the past have given a certain amount of deference to this, according to my understanding. I believe the Supreme Court has held that language in reports and other non-statutory sources are not binding on the executive agencies. If that's the case, then Bush can certainly issue an Executive order telling the agencies not to fund any such earmarks.

    On the other hand, if the same earmarks are voted into legislation, then Bush can't do anything about them individually. He has to either sign or veto the legislation at issue as a whole.
     

Share This Page