Bush vows to tackle pet-project provisions

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday that his administration will outline a series of changes that would clamp down on the common Capitol Hill practice of slipping pet projects into spending bills.

These projects, called earmarks, are spending provisions that often are put into bills at the last minute, so they never get debated or discussed, Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"It is not surprising that this often leads to unnecessary federal spending, such as a swimming pool or a teapot museum tucked into a big spending bill," he said.

The president said his administration's proposal would make earmarks more transparent, make lawmakers more accountable for the earmarks they propose, and help reduce the overall number of earmarks.

Many lawmakers claim they are better suited than others in government to know what their states need. Bush said the use of earmarks has exploded, and pointed to a Congressional Research Service report that the number of earmarks has increased from about 3,000 in 1996 to 13,000 this year.

"I respect Congress' authority over the public purse, but the time has come to reform the earmark process and dramatically reduce the number of earmarks," Bush said.

Democrats, who will take control of Congress on January 4, already announced their plan to wipe out billions of dollars in lawmakers' home-state projects in unfinished spending bills. On Monday, the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees announced they would eliminate earmarks from the nine unfinished spending bills for the budget year that began October 1.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/16/bush.address.ap/index.html
________________________________________

Considering Pelosi just appointed another CA Democrat to the appropriations comittee. I think this is an interestingly timed announcement.

It definately begs the question of the appropriateness of a line item veto power for the President. To which I think would go a long ways in reducing congressional pork.

[Drew]

It definately begs the question of the appropriateness of a line item veto power for the President. To which I think would go a long ways in reducing congressional pork.


It would but the Supreme Court has already ruled against it.

[Back]

Too bad he didn’t do this with the 108th or 109th republican controlled congresses.

Too little too late for Topo Gigo.

[Jesuit]

Too bad he didn’t do this with the 108th or 109th republican controlled congresses.

Too little too late for Topo Gigo.

You mean Topo Gigio right?

[Back]

Right.

S'ok? S'ok.

[Parkbandit]

It's never too late for congressional reform. Hopefully, the Democrats will agree since they said they would be working hard on that issue.

[Gan]

Dont hold your breath PB. Its Pelosi's house, she'll run it how she damn well wants to.

[Back]

From the article...


Democrats, who will take control of Congress on January 4, already announced their plan to wipe out billions of dollars in lawmakers' home-state projects in unfinished spending bills. On Monday, the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees announced they would eliminate earmarks from the nine unfinished spending bills for the budget year that began October 1.

This is old news. The president is making this announcement now? More unitary executive theory (rhetoric) to deceive. Yeah, this was his BIG idea. Brilliant!

[Artha]

Because wiping out spending from 9 bills is the same as making it harder to get away with in the future...

[Back]

Because wiping out spending from 9 bills is the same as making it harder to get away with in the future...

I used to think you were a smart kid. Alas, you dash my hopes upon the rocks of idiocy.

[Celephais]

I used to think you were a smart kid. Alas, you dash my hopes upon the rocks of idiocy.

I hate those rocks.

[Artha]

That's cool man. Stick to your blind pedagoguery. Here's a clue: it wasn't any one person or one party's "big idea". It was a problem that got bad enough - on both sides - that it needed attention. Christ, I don't know if you miss this stuff because you want to or because you genuinely don't see it, but either way open up your fucking eyes.

[Goldenranger]

Here's a clue: it wasn't any one person or one party's "big idea". It was a problem that got bad enough - on both sides - that it needed attention.

Close, but this is truly too idealistic, c'mon these are politicians. The Democrats promised to strip it from the 9 spending bills where the earmarks by large were for Republicans. Bush put the proposal to end it now when he could have done it a good while ago because now the earmarks will be largely for the Democrats. Then they both spin it as if they were "solving a problem" when they really want to try to fuck over the other party.

A cynic's POV.

[Back]

That's cool man. Stick to your blind pedagoguery. Here's a clue: it wasn't any one person or one party's "big idea". It was a problem that got bad enough - on both sides - that it needed attention. Christ, I don't know if you miss this stuff because you want to or because you genuinely don't see it, but either way open up your fucking eyes.

We are talking about the same Republican controlled Congress, right? The same Congress who decided they only needed to work 3 days a week? The same Congress who ballooned earmarks to a new world record? The same Congress who had the least done since the “do-nothing” Congress of '46? The same Congress who professed “small government” but wanted to legislate everyone’s bedrooms?

Pedagoguery it may be, but only to a student.

[HarmNone]

Close, but this is truly too idealistic, c'mon these are politicians. The Democrats promised to strip it from the 9 spending bills where the earmarks by large were for Republicans. Bush put the proposal to end it now when he could have done it a good while ago because now the earmarks will be largely for the Democrats. Then they both spin it as if they were "solving a problem" when they really want to try to fuck over the other party.

A cynic's POV.

Here's another cynic who'll agree with you wholeheartedly, Goldenranger. It's ho-hum, more of the same as far as I'm concerned. :(

[Artha]

We are talking about the same Republican controlled Congress, right? The same Congress who decided they only needed to work 3 days a week? The same Congress who ballooned earmarks to a new world record? The same Congress who had the least done since the “do-nothing” Congress of '46? The same Congress who professed “small government” but wanted to legislate everyone’s bedrooms?

Pedagoguery it may be, but only to a student.

I don't even know if it's worth bothering with anymore. I'm not going to change your mind. Of course you fixate on the bad things, it only serves to further your myopic, narrow-minded views. You can't get past party lines and the D or R behind someone's name. Your responses are as predictable as they are laughable, and honestly it's no wonder you aren't taken seriously by anyone except yourself. It's a shame, too, because you're one of the couple people I've seen from here in the real world, and you were pretty cool. If you could grow up and make peace with the establishment, you'd be a righteous dude.

[Gan]

I don't even know if it's worth bothering with anymore. I'm not going to change your mind. Of course you fixate on the bad things, it only serves to further your myopic, narrow-minded views. You can't get past party lines and the D or R behind someone's name. Your responses are as predictable as they are laughable, and honestly it's no wonder you aren't taken seriously by anyone except yourself. It's a shame, too, because you're one of the couple people I've seen from here in the real world, and you were pretty cool. If you could grow up and make peace with the establishment, you'd be a righteous dude.

He'll make peace with some of the establishment after January, and become all apologetic for the Democrat controlled Congress, and yet still rail against Bush until the election in 2008. If you want a true litmus test, watch how his posting style changes if and when he partakes in threads decrying wrongs perpituated by his 'party'. The Pelosi thread is one for instance. Not the change in his tone and posting demeanor... funny, sad, and yet predictable.

And I think you've described his outlook perfectly.

[Back]

I don't even know if it's worth bothering with anymore. I'm not going to change your mind. Of course you fixate on the bad things, it only serves to further your myopic, narrow-minded views. You can't get past party lines and the D or R behind someone's name. Your responses are as predictable as they are laughable, and honestly it's no wonder you aren't taken seriously by anyone except yourself. It's a shame, too, because you're one of the couple people I've seen from here in the real world, and you were pretty cool. If you could grow up and make peace with the establishment, you'd be a righteous dude.

You keep defending the horrible record of the recent Congresses by using all-inclusive terms yet ignore the facts that are right in front of your face about who the real culprits are. I didn’t even list names of Congressmen who were indicted, investigated and/or resigned. Why you continue to refuse to see that there is one party who significantly fucked-up the past two sessions speaks more of you being the one with the blinders on.

[Artha]

You keep defending the horrible record of the recent Congresses by using all-inclusive terms yet ignore the facts that are right in front of your face about who the real culprits are.
The one thing I didn't do was defend the current Congress.

[Gan]

Why you continue to refuse to see that there is one party who significantly fucked-up the past two sessions speaks more of you being the one with the blinders on.

Whats that about blinders again? Oh thats right, lets just erase history prior to the past 2 sessions, afterall its history now.

:rolleyes: [we really need our eyeroll icon back!!!]

[HarmNone]

I don't see that Artha is defending the outgoing congress, particularly. Let's face it. These are politicians. It doesn't matter much which side of the ballpark they're playing on, they're still playing the same game. It's about feathering one's own nest at the expense of someone else's nest. A pol is a pol is a pol. The few honest ones are rare enough to be listed on the endangered species list.

[xtc]

I would have been impressed if Bush had done this in 2001, or 2002, or 2003, or 2004. This is a political move pure and simple.

[Sean of the Thread]

I would have been impressed if Bush had done this in 2001, or 2002, or 2003, or 2004. This is a political move pure and simple.

Of course it's a political move to curb the impending Dem's pork spree that they're all too famous for.

[xtc]

Of course it's a political move to curb the impending Dem's pork spree that they're all too famous for.


I think the Repubs have gone on a pretty good spending spree of their own.

[Gan]

Of course it's a political move to curb the impending Dem's pork spree that they're all too famous for.

Too bad the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional (6-3). Especially since a majority of the Republicans as well as Clinton was in favor of it.

Since most states have the line item veto built into their own constitution, I dont see why a push to have a constitutional amendment allowing it would be far fetched.

Yea, a line item veto and Congressional term limitations. Start with the latter and you might not even need the former.

This would give politics a fresh face.

[Parkbandit]

There are Presidential term limits.. there certainly should be congressional ones. Far too many career politicians who know the system and take full advantage of it imo.