Email this page
an effort to create searchable online databases for government expenditures
a tool to highlight the hypocrisy of tax hikers
Constitutional or statutory requirement to rein in growth of revenues end expenditures
a commitment made by elected officials and candidates for elected office never to raise taxes
Raising the bar for tax increases
Requiring a cool-off period for all bills with a fiscal impact
pork-barrel spending - the broken windows of the budget
Earmark Shenanigans in the Defense Authorization Bill
Friday, September 12, 2008 11:00 AM
They're back, and they're back at it.
With Congress back in session, the debate over the practice of earmarks is re-ignited. Pork barrel earmakers have inserted language into S. 3001, the defense auhorization act, that would essentially nullify the president's executive order barring federal government agencies from expending any funds for earmarks that have been added in committee or conference report rather than the original bill’s language.
If this sounds familiar, then it may be because earlier this summer on the house side, Congressman Jeff Flake (R-Ariz) offered an amendment to the defense authorization act that would have struck a provision that made the president's executive order inapplicable, but that amendment was not ruled in order.
The senate earmark shenanigans in Sec. 1002 in the bill would essentially give earmarks in committee report the force of law:
“(a) Incorporation- Each funding table in the report of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate to accompany the bill S. XXX of the 110th Congress is hereby incorporated into this Act and is hereby made a requirement in law. Items in each such funding table shall be binding on agency heads in the same manner and to the same extent as if such funding table was included in the text of this Act, unless transfers of funding for such items are approved in accordance with established procedures.”
Not surprisingly, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) has a laundry list of earmarks in the committee report language.
Sen. DeMint (R-SC) is offering an amendment to strike the language, and when it became apparent that he would not be given any floor time, he blocked debate, leading Sen. Levin to grudgingly acknowledge that floor time might have to be granted.
One thing is clear, there is not much left of Democrat promises to end the era of earmarks. Let's hope there is a vote, and the result of that vote keeps the president's executive order intact.
A Special Project of
atr.org
atr.org
722 12th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC
202-785-0261
friends@atr.org
