The Swine Line

According to today’s Wall Street Journal, the President will NOT issue an executive order telling federal agencies to ignore the earmarks that have appeared in the fiscal 2008 spending bills as had been (skeptically) hoped.

12-Step Earmark Withdrawal

…

Their latest halting effort in what appears to be at least a 12-step recovery plan will come tonight, when President Bush uses his State of the Union address to lay down his toughest anti-earmarking pledge to date. We’re told he will tell Congress that he will veto any fiscal 2009 spending bill that doesn’t cut earmarks in half from 2008 levels. He will also report that he is issuing a Presidential order informing executive departments that from now on they should refuse to fund earmarks that aren’t explicitly mentioned in statutory language.

This is progress, though frankly less than we had hoped because Mr. Bush’s executive order will not apply to the fiscal 2008 spending bills that passed late last year. Congress endorsed 11,735 special-interest earmarks worth $16.9 billion in fiscal 2008, yet thousands of these weren’t even written into the actual budget bills. Instead, they were “air-dropped” at the last minute into nonbinding conference reports that serve as advice to federal departments about where to allocate funds. This ruse means that earmarks are able to avoid scrutiny from spending hawks on the House and Senate floor.

We argued in December that Mr. Bush had the legal authority to refuse to fund those this year as well. But in the end we hear he acceded to the argument from Capitol Hill that because he hadn’t made a specific earmark veto pledge last year, he would be sandbagging Congress after the fact and courting its wrath.

…

Senate Republicans in particular lobbied hard to stop Presidential action against their 2008 earmarks, in the strange belief that they will help incumbent Members in close races this fall, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. This shows that Senate Republicans haven’t even taken the first essential step of admitting their addiction.

They also don’t understand that pork is overrated as incumbent protection, as ex-Congresswoman Anne Northup of Kentucky found out last year. She received five times as much pork as the average House Member, but still lost her Louisville district. Conrad Burns delivered $2 billion in earmarks for Montana — about $5,000 for every voter — but he lost too. Five pork-barreling Republicans on the Appropriations Committee in the House and Senate were defeated in 2006. The pork could well boomerang again this year if certain GOP incumbents under investigation for earmark favoritism for political allies are indicted before Election Day.

…

Related Posts: Just say no…; Waiting…waiting…; They Are Starting to Sweat Up There….; Earmark decision deadline