The Day I Amost Agreed with President Bush: On Earmarks, Separation of Powers, and Government Spending
So today President Bush formally announced his opposition to earmarks. In principle, I agree with Mr. Bush’s rejection of earmarks. Despite what Rush Limbaugh might have you believe, liberals are not into wasteful spending.
Bush’s announcement actually deals, then, with two concepts: 1) separation of powers, and 2) government spending.
The first is where I differ with Bush on the issue of dealing with earmarks. I think a line-item veto gives away too much congressional power, and the Congresses we’ve seen during the Bush administration have been among the weakest-kneed ever in the face of one of the most power-hungry presidential administrations ever. I think it’s up to us as American citizens to persuade our congressfolk that we don’t want pork. The sign of good representation is not whether a representative can bring home the bacon; it’s whether he or she knows how to prepare the table for all Americans. I’d rather have a representative who railed against pork than have money for an nth bridge across the Cumberland River, for instance.
Honestly, I think there are some projects for which spending should be dedicated. I’m not actually fundamentally opposed to earmarks as a legislative tool; I’m fundamentally opposed to the lack of scrutiny they receive and the ease with which lobbyists and special interests are able to steal from unknowing American taxpayers. More sunshine and better attention paid by everyone filling out a 1040 would help deal with this issue on a more reliable basis than line-item veto, which gives one person sole authority over projects whose nature is often local/regional, even if misguided.
And this brings us to government spending. I’m a penny-pincher, and I want my government to be able to perform well while requiring as little revenue as possible. I think where I differ from many small-government conservatives is that I’m willing to be taxed for unprofitable public works that make up a sound overall investment.
For instance, I think that investing in a sound transportation infrastructure, including a variety of mass transit options, is a good idea. I want to examine this specific instance for a minute. It’s one that is unlikely to provide profit margins inviting to the private sector. It also requires typically massive investment in infrastructure (rails, tunnels, etc.). What puzzles me is that I don’t often see conservatives lamenting the federal and state highway systems or local roads and sidewalk plans. None of these projects are things that development companies would touch on their own; who wants to pay a toll to walk on the sidewalk or have every panel of sidewalk be an advertisement? So what’s the difference in investing in the infrastructure of roads versus investing in the infrastructure of mass transit? I posit that there’s little other than mindset.
Among other things, we’re witnessing increasing problems with private sector provision of retirement plans and health insurance. I think it’s worth considering whether public policy can create a solution that benefits the majority of Americans cost effectively.
Now do I think multi-million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska are a sound investment? Not so much. Do I think using Metro tax dollars to allow councilfolk to give thousands of dollars to charity is a good use of revenue? Not so much. Do I think that there are countless opportunities to look for better spending decisions as well as possibly fewer spending decisions? Absolutely. But will I be signing up for Grover Norquist’s vision of tax reform? Absolutely not. Taxation is no more an evil than having an organized militia. It’s all about why you need it and what you do with it. I think that government can absolutely be a force for positive change in the lives of Americans and in the course of the world at large, and I think it’s up to us as shareholders to ensure that our investment is a good one.
So, yes, Mr. Bush, let’s work on reducing wasteful earmarks. But, no, you can’t have your line-item veto in order to accomplish the task.
This post was written by Freddie
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Good post! This is momentous: you (almost) agreed with president Bush and I (almost) with you!
Earmarks are bad in my eyes because they are a bad budgeting practice. IMHO, every single dollar spent by every level of government should be justified and approved every single year. Things change. Priorities change.
The line item veto was so tempting because of the way omnibus budget bills are passed. Perhaps Congress could go to an online voting system, and every single spending item could be considered seperately? The current process just begs for abuse.
I am not against government spending per se, but I do think it should always be the funding of last resort. There are a few things that communities and nations can only do by resource pooling. Mass transit is a good example. However, MOST things government does (especially federal government) do not fall under this category, and we should look long and hard at alternatives before turning functions over to the national commune. Some, we may still want to do. But we should ALWAYS do them on purpose, not because a previous generation tied our hands. That’s why earmarks are always a bad idea.
BTW, I actually LIKE the idea of sidewalk advertising. If I ever get elected mayor, I’m gooing to implement it.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
What slartibartfast said.
And surely you supported Dubya on NCLB? Surely you supported him on McCain-Feingold? If not, you’re the one who doesn’t play well with others . . .
And regarding the line-item veto . . . I know that y’all really are concerned about the 4th Reich (I saw “The Darkside”!), but how is having it to isolate indefensible “compromises” a threat to the Republic?
In any event, it is GREAT to see that Democrats have changed their spots on ethics and gov’t spending, and you’ll have my full support for these reforms. Earmarks and Lobbyists weren’t invented by Republicans. It’s amazing the positive side-effects of bushating.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
As far as NCLB, it’s too big an issue for me to say, “Yes, I’m with the President.” I mean, who isn’t for public education? Is a fully standardized curriculum with lots of testing a good thing for public schools? In many cases, probably yes. Does it tend to water down curricula and cause teachers to teach to the tests for performance? Also, in many cases, probably yes. And do aspects of NCLB strike me as resembling an unfunded mandate? Also, yes. So, yeah, I’m for education, too, but it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
I also supported him on McCain-Feingold, but I wasn’t crazy about how that got buried as far as a signing ceremony, especially when contrasted with the very public hubbub involving Schiavo.
This line-item veto legislation might not be as bad as in eras past, when the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I still say all voters ought to dog their representatives more in order to prevent a scenario where the President is making our local spending decisions for us. Isn’t rugged individualism about decentralization and states’ rights after all?
I don’t get too wrapped up in Bush-hating for the sake of needing someone to hate on, just as I don’t have a lot of respect for the water-carriers who admit that they had to carry water (read: Rush) for a congressional majority that wasn’t all that great. When the Democrats screw up (passing meek reforms with little to no opposition), I’ll be just as ready to cry foul.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Well, it appears to me that you should have agreed with, and at least supported, Bush more than you’ve indicated. And can’t you cut the guy some slack on not making a big deal about McCain-Feingold? After all, you got the legislation and he thumbed his nose at Conservatives. The poor guy can’t get a break.
Regarding the Line-item veto, you say, “I still say all voters ought to dog their representatives more in order to prevent a scenario where the President is making our local spending decisions for us.” It’s nice to see some assent to Federalism, but how does a Federal check, approved by the U.S. Congress, amount to a “local spending decision”?
January 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
First of all, the purpose of this post was not to celebrate the many ways I’ve agreed with our president. It’s probably abundantly clear to folks who follow the show that I disagree with him more often than I agree. To suggest that poor ol’ Bush can’t get a break is laughable. Under Cheney’s advisement, the guy has recaptured the most significant degree of executive authority since Nixon, and reinventing Nixon isn’t exactly something I’m excited about. Witness the recent news about Bush going through your mail.
And regarding federalism, when a Tennessee representative, say someone like Jim Cooper, earmarks something that his constituents (separate from lobbyists and other interest groups) have requested, say a new transit hub for MTA, that’s a local decision spending made with federal dollars, probably superseding the limited Metro budget. To give the decision-making to a single person over lots of local decisions of that variety is overstepping bounds, in my opinion.
I wouldn’t be dissatisfied if there were a more clear process for Metro to submit spending decisions to the state, which then submitted its own spending decisions to Congress, but I’m not sure that would wind up being any more representative. Especially for major urban areas, infrastructural projects require more dollars than are available from typical municipal revenue schemes. If those who lament federal largesse want to propose new ways to localize rather than eliminate spending, I’d consider it fairly.