Omnibusting: Omnibus Spending Bill, Earmarks, Pork and Budget Gimmicks [Bush can stop earmarks]

The Heritage Foundation ^ | 12/22/2007

[Clint Williams]

Congressional Research Service Confirms Bush Can Stop Earmarks With Executive Order

December 22, 2007 · No Comments

Sen. Jim DeMint today released a legal memo from the Congressional Research Service confirming that President Bush has the authority to eliminate non-legislative earmarks by executive order. The four-page report is available here as a PDF. It partially states:

This memorandum is in response to your request for a legal analysis of the President’s authority to issue an executive order that would instruct ‘federal agency officials to ignore Congressional Earmarks contained in committee report language.’ In addition, you have also asked us to address whether, as a matter of law, earmarks contained only in committee report language are legally binding on federal agencies.

Based on our review of the relevant constitutional provisions, statutes, and applicable case law it appears that the President possesses the necessary legal and constitutional authority to issue such an executive order. That said, the issuance of an executive order appears to be a discretionary act whose issuance is solely vested with the President of the United States. With respect to your second question, it appears that because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution — specifically, bicameralism and presentment — they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies.

DeMint said the report confirmed that Bush has the “tools he needs to stop wasteful earmarks and force Federal agencies to spend American tax dollars wisely.” DeMint concluded:

A lot of agencies will do whatever some powerful committee chairman tells them simply out of fear that their budgets will be cut if they don’t. This has got to stop. Americans want their tax dollars spent in ways that serve true national interests, not some lawmaker’s political interests. It’s time to give government agencies a clear directive by executive order to ignore all backdoor requests for pork projects.

[teeman8r]

this would be a grand day indeed... bush, by executive order states all earmarks to be used to eliminate the debt first and foremost and then can be spent accordingly...

dems would fight it saying that it is unfair to the children to take money away to eliminate the debt we are placing on our children.

teeman

[rellimpank]

—it’s about seven years too late—

[leadhead]

Won’t ever happen.

[Iron Munro]

—it’s about seven years too late—

Amen to that.

Horse gone.

Barn door open.

Connect the dots.

Asrtronomical spending and no vetos to limit spending.
That is the real Bush “compassionate conservative” legacy.

He was a rollover for the Republican congress when they set new records on spending, pork projects and earmarks.
Now he is concerned about earmarks?
He is a little late to the party.

As of last July, President Bush ranked second amonng all presidents as serving the longest without exercising Presidential authority to veto Congressional legislation.

His first veto was in July, 2006 to lift funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

His second veto in May, 2007 was for the Iraq spending bill but he did not veto it to limit spending - he vetoed it because of the congressional timeline on withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Here is an interesting article on his veto (or non-veto) record:

Bush Veto Action Sets 200 Year Record

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/03/23/bush-veto-action-sets-200-year-record.htm

[sinanju]

Better late than never. The Heritage Foundation explains it all clearly in black-an-white. Only an executive order to the agencies to ignore earmarks inserted in committee reports will do. The Congressional Research Service has weighed in and there is nothing to stop the president from doing so.

If Bush goes ahead and issues the order I would love to see any legislators protest and demand their right to build bridges to nowhere in the full public spotlight.

[sinanju]

Of course the reps and sens can still try to slip their earmarks into legislation but that has to be voted on and any senator can halt a bill to demand an up-or-down vote on any individual earmark that said earmarks’ sponsor must then defend live on CSPAN.

[RoadTest]

Are there more pigs than people under that gorgeous dome?

[Sparticus]

I think folks are misinterpreting this slightly. From my understanding, an earmark directs spending to for a federal expenditure to be directed to a particular company or organization, bypassing a federal departments normal contracting process. They way I'm interpreting this article is that Congress has the power to appropriate funds for projects but not the power to stipulate that company XYZ will get the contract.

If the president has this power and can make it stick, this would effectively neuter the power of of Representatives and Senators from funneling federal contracts to businesses in their home districts. The political implications of this would be hugh and series :)

[CyberAnt]

I’m praying Bush has the courage [which he has exhibted before on many issues] to take down the democrats/repubs once and for all.

All those snotty-nosed repubs who do nothing but whine about Bush .. need to get the JERK yanked out of them!!