|
Congressional appropriators began soliciting requests for pet projects this week, a sign that Congress is still grappling over whether to bow to President Bush’s State of the Union request to rein in earmarking.
These requests are a normal part of the appropriations process, but to earmark foes both on and off Capitol Hill, it’s a sign that lawmakers from both parties have not lost the appetite of steering federal money back home for pet projects.
They are firing up the old earmark bandwagon again and inviting everyone on board,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The [executive order] and veto threat are the elephants in the room they are trying to ignore. Just go about spending business as usual and hope it goes away.”
Earmarks are popular with both parties, especially in an election year. But Republicans are under enormous pressure to show their fiscal conservative base that they will curtail the practice. Critics say lawmakers abuse earmarking and have repeatedly crossed ethical lines; supporters argue that it is Congress’ prerogative to choose spending priorities so long as the process is transparent.
Both House and Senate Republicans say they are taking steps that could lead to a decrease in earmarks. But Democrats have been defiant in the face of Bush’s statements, and have levied criticism on the president for proposing a slew of pet projects in his own fiscal 2009 budget proposal.
“We cut earmarks in half in this past year, and one would hope maybe the president would cut his earmarks in half,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee.
A day after his State of the Union address last month, Bush issued an executive order telling federal agencies to ignore earmarks included in committee report language that accompany the text of spending bills. He also pledged to veto any spending bill this year that does not cut earmarks in half from previous years’ levels.
Appropriations bills typically allocate a specific amount of funding, and report language provides detailed instructions on how agencies should carry out that funding. Supporters say that the practice is necessary to make it easier to direct the funding in case there is a mistake written in the legislation, but critics say the process allows lawmakers to hide potentially problematic projects from daylight.
“If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote,” Bush said to a standing ovation during the State of the Union address.
Bush submitted his $3.1 trillion budget to Capitol Hill this week, kicking off this year’s budget process. Afterward, House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees began setting deadlines ranging from the middle of March to the first week of April for lawmakers to submit all requests, including bill and report language, according to lawmakers and e-mails sent out by the committee aides.
|
