Earmark Toolkit

Editorials and Opinions

Print this page

August 15, 2007

Bush and Earmarks

Wall Street Journal

President Bush declared in this year's State of the Union address that the "time had come" to end the secretive Congressional practice of spending "earmarks." He is about to get a splendid opportunity to show he meant it.

The chance will arrive in the form of the lobbying and ethics bill passed by Congress at the end of July. The bill includes a sham earmark reform provision that falls well short of what Democrats campaigned for last year, and short of what each house passed earlier this year before the watered-down version came out of nowhere last month. This is one veto message that wouldn't be hard to write.

For example, Democrats removed a provision barring Members from trading earmarks for votes. Members and their staff will still be able to promote earmarks from which they or their families receive a financial benefit. They even gave themselves a pass on disclosure, saying Congress only had to list earmarks on the Internet 48 hours before consideration of legislation if this was "technically feasible."

Americans across the spectrum hate this kind of political self-dealing, and Mr. Bush could explain his veto by saying he is trying to hold Congress to its reform pledge. He could also mention that earmarks have become a ready opportunity for corruption (Duke Cunningham), cost real money (upwards of $30 billion a year), and serve as the political grease to buy Member votes to pass budget-busting legislation (highway or farm bills).

We hear there's a debate among White House staff about whether to recommend a veto, and no doubt some aides are saying it's too politically risky. The legislation passed both houses by overwhelming margins, and so Mr. Bush could be overridden. There's also the danger of opposing something the media will describe as ethics and lobbying reform -- which is one reason so many Republicans in Congress went along with it.

All true, but not persuasive. Mr. Bush could sustain a veto if he were willing to use his bully pulpit to explain these earmark abuses, as well as citing some specific spending howlers. That might anger a few Members, but then they haven't been doing him any favors of late in any case. With a veto, he'd also be rewarding those GOP backbenchers such as Oklahoma's Tom Coburn in the Senate and Arizona's Jeff Flake in the House who have dared to challenge the free spenders by fighting for earmark reform.

GOP leaders who supported the bill would suddenly find themselves siding with Democrats, rather than with a President of their own party and their more principled backbenchers pushing for spending restraint. They'd be hard-pressed to override a veto, especially given the grassroots anger among conservatives after the bill passed in July.

Republicans won't get any credit for colluding with Democrats to engage in the very spending free-for-all that so annoyed voters when the GOP ran the joint. A Presidential veto would be a good first step toward restoring Republican credibility on spending, and nicely frame the budget debates to come after Labor Day.

Permalink