This Christmas Eve many taxpayers would be content to have the government take its grubby mitts out of our stockings. After a decade of runaway spending at every level of government (except Bogota), simply not facing even higher taxes next year would be just fine for the masses who have come to consider real tax cuts a whimsical fantasy. But the elves in Washington who have managed to elevate the status quo to mean tax relief, this Christmas request is within reach.
Some Republicans left town this holiday season feeling triumphant, with a no-tax-hike AMT patch, an energy bill that could have been much worse, a clean SCHIP expansion, and an omnibus appropriations bill relatively free of policy riders and ostensibly within the president’s budget limits.
But leading fiscal conservatives, like New Jersey’s congressman Scott Garrett, are less than content. Their major concerns with the omnibus are the use of budget gimmicks and emergency spending designations to mask higher social spending, and the large-scale re-emergence of pork-barrel earmarks. These earmarks fly in the face of the promises and rhetoric heard earlier this year from the new Democratic majority, claiming they would adopt house rules to end earmark abuse.
President Bush has few options but to accept the budget, but it is within his power to eliminate the more than 9,000 earmarks in the bill by upholding the U.S. Constitution and issuing an executive order demanding that earmarks should be eliminated. There is precedent for this action: Ronald Reagan.
In 1987, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill. At the time, it seemed pork-laden, although the earmarks numbered in the hundreds, minor compared to this year’s bill. In his 1987 State of the Union Address, President Reagan cited some of the more egregious examples of pork-barrel earmarks from the committee reports and said: “If you send me another one of these I will not sign it.” He then turned to his advisors to determine if anything could be done about the wasteful earmarks in the bill.
In last year’s State of the Union Address, President Bush said:
“Over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice."
Efforts by the White House, fiscal watchdog groups, and pork-busting heroes in Congress like Rep. Scott Garrett and Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma haven’t been enough to get the job done. The recently passed omnibus, along with the already-enacted Defense Appropriations bill, has pushed this year’s earmark total to over 11,000. For Bush to succeed in stopping earmarks, he will have to do it himself.
In 1987, President Reagan’s budget director, Jim Miller, devised a solution to the earmark problem: uphold the U. S. Constitution. He determined that case law was clear that committee report language, which is where earmarks appear, is not law because it fails to meet the requirements of the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Miller (now a member of my board at Americans for Prosperity) instructed executive agencies to comply with the law, the actual legislative language, but to disregard the earmarks in the accompanying reports and to instead spend funds on their priorities based on project merit and the president’s priorities. Capitol Hill erupted in protest, threatening retaliation if their pork barrel spending wasn’t protected. Reagan had a bigger fight over Iran-Contra to deal with, and he backed down.
President Bush is well-situated to complete what Reagan started and put an end to report language earmarks. He has the public on his side, with overwhelming majorities opposing earmarks in poll after poll, and he has shown fortitude on fights like the SCHIP battle to stick to his policy guns in the face of Congressional backlash.
President Bush should issue an executive order directing agencies to disregard earmarks that appear in committee reports. Forcing earmarks into appropriations bill texts would enhance transparency and accountability while reducing anonymous earmarks. It would end Congressional shadowy spending policies in the omnibus bill, and has the virtue of upholding the U. S. Constitution.
Mr. President, all I want for Christmas is an executive order de-funding earmarks - you can keep the teeth, that’s not the government’s job anyway.
Steve Lonegan is the Mayor of Bogota, NJ, and Executive Director of Americans for Prosperity - New Jersey. Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP Foundation) are committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process. He is a prolific writer, having been published in newspapers and blogs. He just published a book, Putting Taxpayers First: A Blueprint for Victory in the Garden State, that discusses the impact of the Trenton government on the well being of the taxpayers of the state. He offers solid and workable solutions. Learn more at lonegan.com.
Joe Ferriero's recent legal woes -- allegations that he assaulted a woman at a Labor Day barbecue at his home, and a federal probe of a grants ... >
There's something missing from the Republican Convention. There is a need for a camera behind the curtain where speakers greet ... >
Barack Obama offers a hard-left vision for America. He would take NJ's disastrous economic policies national, and the resulting economic ... >
Selecting the next NJN anchor will certainly be a different process than what happens at the major networks, local affiliates and other public ... >
Tibet – the broad, high plateau between India and China – is bigger than Western Europe and the source of the great rivers of Asia: the Indus, ... >
For the past few weeks, I've watched with fascination as politician after politician have appeared on a beach or a boardwalk and declared their ... >
To view a larger version of this cartoon, click here. >
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Meet the Press, made a statement that incurred the wrath of members of the Catholic bishops club. She dared to say that ... >
And now we go back in time, to Mr. Dembo's eighth grade science class and JHS 278, and a sixteen millimeter film about the seasonal migration of ... >
Are those the same two front teeth?
Are those the same front teeth you were lying through about intentionally hiring undocumented workers?
Naturally
You would bring that up rather than discuss the subject of the post. You can't go after him on it because you know he's right, so instead you rehash the same tired arguments over and over again. When will you all give it up already and just accept the fact that the man knows what he's talking about when it comes to fiscal conservativism?
i don't understand
why can't we raise spending while lowering taxes at the same time...
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
Great subject, stupid comment
Intentionally hiring undocumented (here illegally) workers? I am sure he went out and said "are you illegal workers"? "If so, want a job"? How stupid are you? Further, since the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey has issued a policy statement that bars government officials from asking if someone is in this country legally or not, I believe that Steve would be indicted by him if he had refused them work. Actually, the police that had asked them, when they went to harrass them at the house they were working at, should have been censored for asking that question.
Now, to the real heart of the matter, and that is uncontrolled spending. George Bush should send out that memo to say, "do not spend this money"! If we want to reduce the debt (the deficit causes the debt) this is a first step, cut out this type of spending.
"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
--Theodore Roosevelt--
NJPantherFan and Richard_Zuendt
I didn't even read the post, because this guy is a massive hypocrite and has proven himself to be one. Ridicule is the only way to respond to someone who pretends to be principled but lives his life without them.
Read the stories about this, Richard. He first said they came to his office looking for work, then after the truth came out he admitted that he was trolling the day laborer areas for workers. He lied about this from the beginning, hired undocumented workers, and then tried to pretend that he was being singled out for political reasons.
The guy says he dropped them off at his house and told them to stay put -- don't work -- until he came back with the I-9 to verify their status. But they started work (how did they know what to do if he hadn't told them?) and then were seen by a neighbor, arrested by the police and booked before Lonegan ever came back to his property! If that story is true, then how long did he expect them to sit around not working before he came back with I-9s? That doesn't pass the smell test even a little.
And then later he said that he had done this before, and if after they did work he found out that they were not documented he just didn't pay them. That's about as sleezy as it gets.
This is the same guy who blasted McDonalds -- using taxpayer letterhead, office support and postage -- for putting up billboards in his town in Spanish.
He's not worth reading because you can't trust him to mean what he says.
FormallyAnonymous-A waste of space
FA Why are you so obsessed that you continue to waste my time with posts that are not related to the subject? You expect private citizens and business owners to enforce a law that our own mighty government does not or will not enforce. Get a life. We have bigger problems than worrying about two illegals and one employer.
According to the GAO, “the federal government’s total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future benefits payments…are now estimated at $53 trillion…this translates into a defacto mortgage of about $455,000 for every American household…”
Steve Lonegan is right we need an executive order de-funding earmarks.