Executive Order their pork-laden [expletive deleted], Mr. President.
Right between their eyes.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Right down the middle | Sou-eee! Sou-eee! Sou-eee! — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hey, I'm not the only one who thinks that. The IBD stopped just short of calling for Senator Byrd to wake up tomorrow with a horse's head in his bed:
Stick It In Their Earmarks
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY(snip)
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle slipped into the [appropriations] bill close to 10,000 of the so-called earmarks (provisions to spend budget authorizations on pet projects, typically in the earmark author's home state or district). They totaled more than $10 billion.
(snip)
The Congressional Research Service issued a report last week confirming that earmarks not included in the actual bill but written into accompanying reports — which is most of them — do not have force of law and can therefore be disregarded by the president.
(snip)
If the president decided to get tough and issue an executive order instructing all agencies not to be guided by earmarks not actually included in the appropriations legislation, he would have on his side the Presentment Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution, which describes how a bill becomes law.
(Via Captain Ed)
Read on.
The Captain goes on to suggest either the Iowa Caucuses or the State of the Union speech for Bush to make the announcement. I'm torn on that, myself: the earlier, the better... but the image of the President telling Congress that this is going down, and then the panicky looks as 500+ legislators realize that the cameras are on them and they had better start clapping if they don't want this showing up in a campaign ad...
Let us savor that image, for a moment.
(pause)
Moving on, as a practical matter Ed's right: there's almost no downside for the President for this one. Granted, it's only nationally that Americans hate pork; we happily forgive our local porkers. It's still true that we nationally hate pork, and the news that the President is doing something to counteract it will help hearten fiscal conservatives, who have been taking a lot of beatings for the Party's sake these last seven years. True, it'll mean that the next Congressional session will make this one look like the New Deal's First 100 Days - which will just break conservative hearts, won't it? - and put some freshmen Congressmen in opposite-color districts at risk because they aren't showing that they're good providers, but that's about it...
Oh, right, all of those freshmen are Democrats trying to keep their seats in Republican districts.
(pause)
You're a baseball man, Mr. President - so I hardly need to tell you about the tactical uses of the beanball, do I?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | What Does Bhutto's Death Mean? — Comments (58) »
Executive Order their pork-laden [expletive deleted], Mr. President. 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
HTML Help for Red Staters
Make them accountable. If they want this schtuff, make them put it in the bills and vote on it.
==== 13 ====
And it would immediately and drastically change Washington. Plus, the next POTUS would almost be obligated to continue the practice.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
Post was in response to Neil. :o)
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard. The Wesley Clark of the Federation Starfleet. ;)
Let's hope the president is a fan of James T. Kirk.
Some OTHER time I'll give you the business over the Picard v Kirk thing, Icythus -- but at the moment I'm too jazzed about the opportunity that Bush has right now to poke a sharp stick into the eyes of the Porkers from all parties.
Pretty sure the whole lobbying apparatus ain't gonna care for it either.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Do you want to stop earmarks? Here's how you do it.
Take a total of what all the earmarks cost the American people over the past ten years. Divide that amount by 300 million [the number of Americans. Then publish the total and ask; Wouldn't you like to receive a check for this amount? Meaning that every American could have that amount of money in their bank account instead of it going to wasteful pork barrel projects.
This does two things. It points out the amount every American is "responsible" for and it personalizes what that amount could or would mean to each citizen.
Example: $30 billion [per year of pork] X 10 [years] = 300 billion dollars. Divided by 300 million = $3,000 per person. [Or calculate just adults.]
I'd like to get a check for $3,000. And that makes it personal.
Could we get a list of those goodies and who it was that stuck each one of them in there? I'd like to know about all this stuff I have to pay for through my payroll deductions.
Is there a list somewhere we can go look this up? Got a link?
Who exactly is it that keeps spending more money than Federal Government has by slipping these things past us?
Surely its your congressional rep and not mine.
Jim Tomasik
one move might single-handedly get your face put on Rushmore, in spite of all the big-government things you've perpetrated on us.
Or at the minimum, we'll remember you fondly!
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
I know what you're getting at - If a bill is going to be for let's say $1B total regardless of whether $50M is earmarked for certain purposes or not, then of course you're right. But why couldn't the bill be for $1B without the earmarks or $950M without them? (Likely answer: Because politicians are chicken-sh*t.) It's all part of how people in DC don't have to live in the real world like the rest of us do.
The processes that determine the $1 billion, and that determine the $50 million, are disconnected. The presence or absence of the earmarks won't change the negotiations that determine the $1 billion figure.
And yes, I do think we need to fix that with zero baseline budgeting, thank you very much, heh.
Lets say all of the earmarks that can be done away with are, the money in the bill that is left over (because it was meant to go to this-or-that earmark) doesn't have to be spent, right?
I'm sure it will be spent regardless, but if it weren't, wouldn't it be like that department/agency having a savings account of money that could be carried forward into the fiscal year?
If the money weren't earmarked, the people in charge of the agency/department/bureau in question would have the authority to spend it elsewhere.
And they would have incentive to do so. If it were unspent, the money would revert to the Treasury instead of to some, well, earmarked account.
In addition to the obvious fallacy of it all - they get some random number that is obviously higher than what is really needed to run the operation - you get thinking like, "Oh my God! We have to spend another $100M before year-end or else they may cut us next year. Joe, go find some storage space we can rent. Mary, go find a way to fill it with $100M worth of supplies from Staples."
When they come up with that $1 billion they aren't exactly oblivious to the fact that they'll be able to divert a chunk of any new dough they allocate with their earmarks... so it leads to padding and still costs money.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sorry to say, I don't think Bush has the ******* to do it.
I love his articles here on Red State (along with many other author's) but I have been unable to locate a personal blog for him... just curious
his "Talk Like a Pirate Day" name, Barnacle Brain Jack.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Loosely translated: Let it be so.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.