Posted by
Always To The Right on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:26:27 PM
Barack Obama’s one significant legislative accomplishment came in
partnership with Senator Tom Coburn in mandating the creation of a
federal spending database that showed how the federal budget got
spent. Porkbusters cheered this bill, as it allowed for easy searches
to research the connection between federal spending and elected
representatives, especially on pork. Now that Obama has won the
presidency, he has decided to end earmarks altogether — but can he do it? Obama promised this change at yesterday’s presser (via Instapundit)
We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review.
We will create an economic recovery oversight board made up of key
administration officials and independent advisers to identify problems
early and make sure we’re doing all that we can to solve it. We will
put information about where money is being spent online so that the
American people know exactly where their precious tax dollars are going
and whether we are hitting our marks.
Did Obama check with Harry Reid? Ten months ago, Reid told reporters that the founding fathers created the legislature
for the specific purpose of porking up the national budget. And no one
will insult the memory of Washington and Jefferson by stripping Reid of
his pork-barrel power, lest the Porkbuster be called un-American!
Unfortunately for Obama, though, the mechanism for banning earmarks
doesn’t lie with the executive branch. Obama will have few options,
even if he’s serious and not just spouting a bon mot for a
little centrist credibility. Spending bills originate in Congress, and
they have no restriction on how they construct the budget. Obama can
veto bills with pork items, as John McCain promised to do, or he could
extend the executive order that instructs his agencies not to spend
earmarks as directed by Congress that Bush signed last year. Both would
set up crises at the federal level between the two branches that I
seriously doubt Obama wants to see erupt while we’re at war, especially
with complete Democratic governance under test for the first time since
1994.
Otherwise, Obama has no more power to “ban” earmarks than he does to
set debating rules in the House or to ban the filibuster in the
Senate. As a supposed Constitutional scholar, he should know this.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I’m not buying it for a second.
Obama won’t go to war with Reid and Nancy Pelosi over earmarks no
matter what he says now for the media’s consumption.
And in fact, Obama began backpedaling a few minutes later:
Question: … Earmarks, you said there will be none that
get in there without review. Some people would argue even the so-called
bridge to nowhere got review, some level of review …
Obama: No, no, no. What I’m saying is - let me repeat what I said
about that … We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I
describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet
projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having
earmarks in the recovery package, period. I was describing what
earmarks are.
Question: So there’s - you’re not suggesting there’s some level of review that might …
Obama: I’m saying there are no earmarks in the recovery package. That, that is the position that I’m taking.
So Obama is only limiting his earmark ban to the recovery package,
not overall — and even then, not entirely. Only those projects
inserted without review count as earmarks. What constitutes
“review”? A floor vote, or a discussion in committee among the porkers
around the table? And even then, the only way Obama can get earmarks
out would be to veto anything Congress presents to him with earmarks
within it — and I doubt Obama would kill the centerpiece of his
domestic economic agenda merely to make a point about a process he
himself used repeatedly as a Senator. In fact, Obama never even
mentioned a veto during the press conference.
I also find it highly revealing of the media attending this presser that not one reporter challenged Obama on his authority to deliver on that promise.
It’s practically Con Law 101, or even high-school civics, and yet no
one thought to wonder how Obama would “ban earmarks” as President.
Pathetic.