Scroll Down So You Can Read About The Fundraiser (SDSYCRATF)
You've got to love how the media frames an issue:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's last State of the Union address is expected to be heavy on Iraq and the economy, but he also will say he is entering a congressional fray over earmarking taxpayer dollars, administration officials said.
President Bush delivers his State of the Union address in January 2007.
Bush will announce "unprecedented changes" in the way lawmakers earmark money for special projects that benefit their districts or campaign contributors, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an e-mail.
The president plans to sign an executive order Tuesday "directing agencies to ignore any future earmarks included in report language, but not in the legislation," Fratto said.
The order will not be retroactive, he added. Democrats were quick to point out that almost half of the 11,735 earmarks approved in 2008 were GOP-sponsored and White House-endorsed.
"The president will say that if these spending items are worthy, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote," Fratto said. "He will state his commitment to veto any spending bill that does not succeed in cutting earmarks in half from 2008 levels."
The move comes after House Republicans challenged Democrats in a letter Friday to join a bipartisan effort to overhaul earmarks. Republicans are expected to use earmarking as an issue against Democrats in the 2008 elections.
Is this executive order even Constitutional? Doesn't it sound like it interferes with the role of Congress, which is to represent the people by being a large, slow, methodical and deliberative body that appropriates and spends the money only after both houses compromise and agree on legislation? There was a reason why the founders put the power of the purse in the hands of the many rather than the Unitary Executive. They knew there would be a George Bush someday.
Here's how that lede should have been written:
Despite widespread use of earmarks by the Republican-controlled Congress for the majority of his time in office, President Bush will attempt to remain relevant for the remainder of his lame-duck term by attempting to sign legislation to curb the use of earmarks.
It's smart politicking--as the GOP continues to descend into hell, the Republicans want to staunch the flow of earmarks into Democratic districts because that money will help re-elect Democrats. Hey--what was Tom DeLay good for? Using earmarks to batter the Democrats because the money flowed into areas where Republican members of the House could keep their seats. What better way to keep the Dems from increasing their control of Congress than by cutting off the earmarks that will help get some of the Democratic members re-elected in close districts?
Here's where we pray for Democrats in the leadership in Congress to shove this issue back down their throats.