About 7 Years Too Late...

[legion]

He should have done this from the get-go, IMO.

Yes, I understand that with his own party in control of both houses of Congress, it made it difficult to do this and still get everything done that he wanted.

Now that he has gotten everything he wanted, extreme gridlock doesn't seem so bad...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080128/pl_bloomberg/arjoxb3meak

President George W. Bush will begin ``unprecedented steps'' to trim billions of dollars earmarked by lawmakers for pet projects, a White House spokesman said.

In his State of the Union address tonight, Bush will promise to ``veto any spending bill that does not succeed in cutting earmarks in half from 2008 levels,'' deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said in an e-mail.

[jyl]

Well, he hasn't gotten everything he wanted during the past 7 years (remember Social Security reform, and immigration reform, and other major Bush initiatives that got nowhere).

So if he's been buying the cooperation of his own party for $50BN/year (approximate magnitude of earmarks in 2004), not sure he's gotten a good deal.

But now that Congress is under Democratic leadership, Bush's chances of getting much from Congress is even lower, and he doesn't even have any major domestic policy agenda left for his last year.

So after 7 years of ignoring the growing problem of earmarks, "now" he suddenly realizes they are a problem. Pure partisan politics.

That said, earmarks should be eliminated, so I guess better now than never.

Background on earmarks - http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/earmarksFAQ

[hytem]

Bush's biggest pet project is Iraq--start trimming there. The big stuff before the peanuts.

[Rick Lee]

I guess having low poll numbers and being a lame duck have their upside too. Bush has nothing to lose by doing this. I doubt he has any realistic hopes of getting anything through Congress other than the rebates in his final year. Of course, directing agencies to not fund earmarks is begging for a SCOTUS challenge and that could be a good thing too.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Of course, directing agencies to not fund earmarks is begging for a SCOTUS challenge and that could be a good thing too.

Yeah, I'd love to see this before the SCOTUS.

"But we have the right to add things to bills that no one else ever sees."

[Rick Lee]

No, I think the earmarks are part of the Congressional record, if not the Federal Register. But no one reads that stuff. Besides, there are thousands of them. No one could sift through them all or make much of a story about them, other than the true outrages like the bridge to nowhere.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

from last August.

Republican Strategy?

Bush is clearly the worst President in history.

[HardDrive]

Shall we throw 'Presidential Signing Statements' into this mix as well?

Both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. have rather scummy practices....

[frogger]

With his legacy on its deathbed, Bush is trying to become a born-again conservative. IMO, he's too late. RIP to his pitiful legacy.

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Shall we throw 'Presidential Signing Statements' into this mix as well?

Both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. have rather scummy practices....

Ahhh yes. "I'm signing this bill into law but my Administration will ignore it".

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by DaveE

Ahhh yes. "I'm signing this bill into law but my Administration will ignore it".

you make it sound like ignoring laws that Congress passes is a bad thing.

Bush knows better. Just look at his track record.