Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bush Spent His Credibility
By Jacob Sullum
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


In his 2007 State of the Union speech, right at the moment when the Democrats took over Congress, President Bush came out of the closet as a fiscal conservative. The laughter was still echoing on Monday night, when he ascended the podium for his last State of the Union speech.

Bush nevertheless braved ridicule by reiterating his newfound commitment to pork-free balanced budgets. Even if we take him at his word, nothing he has proposed can undo the damage he did in his first six years.

Bush's approach to earmarks, the centerpiece of his get-tough fiscal strategy, shows his lack of seriousness. He issued an executive order instructing agencies to ignore earmarks that do not appear in the legislative text, and he threatened to veto any spending bill that "does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half."

But the order does not kick in until fiscal year 2009, so it does not affect any of this year's earmarks -- 11,737 items totaling $16.9 billion, by the administration's count. More than 90 percent of those earmarks do not have the force of law because they appear in committee reports or other documents outside the spending bills to which they were attached.

Once the executive order takes effect (and assuming the next president does not rescind it), Congress can readily evade it by including language in spending bills that makes earmarks listed in committee reports mandatory. Even without such maneuvers, agencies anxious to maintain good relations with the people who provide their budgets may decide to fund legislators' pet projects.

Like his executive order, the president's veto threat does not apply, even theoretically, until after Oct. 1. Given Congress's usual tardiness in passing appropriations bills, which this year will be compounded by the presidential election, Bush may not have a chance to veto any.

The results of previous veto threats are not encouraging. The Heritage Foundation found that last year's omnibus spending bill exceeded Bush's supposedly nonnegotiable limit by $20 billion, relying on budget tricks to create the illusion of compliance. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: It's kinda funny
how fast conservatives who have praised and praised this lunatic for years are now distancing themselves from the village idiot.

Flip flopping?


Republicans versus "Conservatives"
Study the history of the Republican Party and you will find that George W. Bush--the biggest, most profligate spender in history--is consistent with the way the Republican Party has always been. That is: CHAMPIONS OF BIG GOVERNMENT.

"Conservative" is a poorly-defined and misleading term. Most people, however, associate "conservatism" with "limited government" and "less centralized political power."

Republicans have never stood for this in any serious manner.

A little history: Lincoln, the father of the GOP, instituted a virtual terror-state in which opposition newspapers were shut down and their editors jailed. He ruled as a virtual dictator, violating the Constitution at will--as when he created West Virginia out of the existing state of Virginia, an act specifically forbidden by the Constitution.

Move on a little further in history. Theodore Roosevelt, another Republican, was the first champion of "progressive" politics. He championed the Sherman Antitrust Act--one of the worst laws ever passed--and championed war with Spain for the purpose of taking colonies all over the globe.

Then, we get Bush I and Bush II. Both presided over huge increases in the federal budget and federal deficit.

Conservatives: if you truly believe in limited, non-intrusive government, why do you support the Republican Party, which has historically always been a party of big government?

Interestingly, the supposedly "liberal" Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were actually far more fiscally responsible than most Republican administrations. Bill Clinton actually achieved a budget surplus (at least on paper).

Conservatives: WAKE UP! Your future is not with the conniving, back-stabbing, Machiavellian Republican Party!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.