Bush's executive order against earmarks could kill history projectsBreaking News
The executive order follows through on the threat the President made during his State of the Union address this week to sharply curtail the ability of Members of Congress, through the use of earmarks in committee report language, to designate funds in appropriations legislation for specific projects or organizations, most often in their district or state.
The EO defines an earmark “as any funds provided by Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) (1) circumvents merit-based or competitive allocation processes; (2) specifies the location or recipient of the funds; or (3) otherwise limits the ability of the Executive Branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities for the allocation of federal funds.”
The battle between the executive and legislative branch over the use of earmarks has been going on for many years. “Pork barrel” projects, such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska have led to stronger efforts to curtail the increasing use of earmarks by Congress.
The use of earmarks grew exponentially during President Bush’s years in the White House when the Republican Party controlled Congress. According to the watchdog group Citizen’s Against Government Waste, in 2001 there were 6,333 earmarks totaling $18.5 billion in the federal budget. By 2005, that number had ballooned to $27.3 billion for 13,997 projects. In 2007, the first year the Democrats controlled Congress, the numbers dropped dramatically to $13.2 billion for 2,658 earmarks.
EO 13457 applies to earmarks in bills Congress will send to the President beginning in Fiscal Year 2009. The policy will remain in effect unless the Executive Order is repealed by a future President.
Specifically, the Executive Order:
Directs every Federal Agency to ensure that laws passed by Congress in the future do not spend money on an earmarked project based on language in a Committee report or any other communication from Members of Congress or other persons acting on their behalf.
Future non-statutory earmarks can only receive funding if the agency determines, pursuant to a merit-based decision process, that the project in question is the best possible expenditure of taxpayer dollars consistent with the law.
Members of Congress will have the opportunity, as they’ve always had, to advocate for projects they support. For these views to be considered as part of an Agency’s merit-based, decision-making process, however, they must be submitted in writing and will be made public on the Internet within 30 days.
comments powered by Disqus
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Newly released interactive map shows images of destroyed monuments of Mosul
- How the Rise of the Post Office Explains American Innovation
- These Americans are reliving history and don’t mind repeating it
- Britain largest home is saved for the nation
- Shelter and the slums: capturing bleak Britain 50 years ago
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't
- Princeton U. historian Imani Perry claims mistreatment in parking ticket arrest
- Retired historian George Dennison remains on the payroll at the U. of Montana while faculty are cut
- The Atlantic profiles exciting ways to teach history