What earmarks and signing statements have in common

January 24, 2007

There’s one paragraph from last night’s State of the Union address that’s been bugging me all day:

“Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour — when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, 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.”

On the substance of the comment, Bush’s complaint about earmarks was merely hypocritical. As TP noted, Bush has “engaged in his own earmarking, using the federal budget process to ‘reward political supporters, campaign contributors and sometimes members of Congress’ for votes on a presidential priority. Unlike with appropriations bills, you have no way to know whether an executive earmark ‘comes from some agency’s discretionary fund, and they decide to put it in some key district or state’ for political gain.” In other words, it’s not as if the president has the moral high ground here.

But there’s something else. The president was decrying these extra-legal provisions — which sound an awful lot like his signing statements. Lawmakers don’t “vote them into law”; Bush doesn’t “sign them into law”; and yet “they’re treated as if they have the force of law.”

Hasn’t the time come to end this practice?

January 24, 2007 at 4:37 pm

i guess i’m just ignorant, but if something isn’t voted into law, and isn’t signed into law, how does it become law?

Earmarks are what the Congress does, so eliminate them now that the Democrats are in power. Signing statements are what the President does, so keep those to keep democracy strong…. This is yet another example of the Republican tendency to think that rules are for other people.

Once a Democrat has the Presidency, expect the Republicans to insist that signing statements be eliminated.

I’ve got the same question as “just bill” (#1) above. How can Bush say that he didn’t sign them into law when that is the main way that any bill becomes law? If Bush was so adamant about earmarks he should have vetoed the boat-load of bills that had them.

Here’s a line I thought topped the levies of hypocrisy:

“For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.”

He said that right after he recited the list of foiled terrorist plots thus touting them as his big successes. Now we all know the list itself is misleading, but what really struck me was the juxtoposition with the Scooter Libby trial and the “revelations” from the opening statements which should refresh the nation’s memory as to how this administration pays it’s “debt of gratitude” to the brave public servants, like Valerie Plame, who devote their lives to finding terrorists and stopping them.

In answer to JC (#4) and just bill (#1) (hey, jb, is that an allusion to the Ross Thomas novel with a character by that name?), the reason Bush can say what he did about earmarks not being voted or signed into law is that he’s a lying motherfucker, and he’s absolutely shameless about it.

Earmarks, despite Bush’s claims to the contrary, are put into legislation which is then voted on and, if passed by Congress and approved of by the president, then signed into law.

When Bush says, “they’re treated as if they have the force of law,” he’s being a dick. They’re *treated* as if they have the “force of law” because they were included in legislation which became law when he signed the goddamn things. That is how bills become law.

Unlike, for example, those unconstitutional little bastards that he tacks onto legislation like so many spooge-stained tissues.

For Bush to complain about the legality of legally-enacted laws while issuing signing statements is either breath-takingly ignorant or brazen, if not both, and suggests that he’s either clueless about, or indifferent to, if not both, the whole fucking Constitutional scheme of government.

Nobody who said the shit he did on this issue should be president, much less have passed tenth-grade civics. I don’t know if he should be impeached for ignoring the Constitution or for being so fucking stupid, but nobody who said what he did has *ANY* business playing a role in the federal government of anything *near* the magnitude of his.

Both earmarks and signing statements are despicable, under-the-table, extralegal tactics that should be stopped by rule and/or law.

If something is worth adding as an earmark, it’s worth voting on as a part of the bill.

If the President has a constitutional issue with a bill, he can (1) notify Congress while the bill is under consideration or (2) veto the bill. Likewise, if he wants a clarification, he can request a clarification either before or after passage. If he doesn’t like the answer he gets, he can veto.

These people swear to uphold the Constitution. It’s time they pay attention to what it says or ammend it.

The Faith Based Initiative is a giant George Bush designed earmark to give money to right wing christian groups who will then send a little suger back W’s way. For someone who talks up such a storm about christian principles, Bush sure often forgets that 9th commandment to not lie.

Earmarks, signing statements, byzantine and esoteric congressional legislative procedures, pocket vetoes,…the list very long. You have to think the founders would cringe.

Comments are closed.