Junior Draws a Line in the Ear

Dec 18. 2006

On the pathetic self-stroking in Junior's Saturday Morning Reading Class, trying to generate some enthusiasm over an anemic economy.

To me, the mind-bending disconnect in Junior's address was his courageous stand against earmarks in legislation. Duck under the fold and let's listen to the Decider for a sec:

. . .over the last decade, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of earmarks has exploded -- increasing from about 3,000 in 1996 to 13,000 in 2006.

Nice work there. Somebody actually got him to successfully pronouce a four-syllable word and accurately relay a set of two numbers. But the dates that bracket those numbers hide a glaring fact, one that can be easily deduced by looking at the CRS report: Earmarks have exploded since the Bush administration took office. With both houses of Congress under GOP control and a president who cannot bring himself to veto a single bill, earmarks have gone stratospheric since 2000.

Two examples from the CRS report:

Agriculture Appropriations
Summary of Estimated Earmarks
(millions of current dollars)
FY Earmarks
1994 313
1996 211
2000 359
2005 704

Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
Appropriations
Summary of Estimated Earmarks
(millions of current dollars)

FY Earmarks
1994 253
1996 171
2000 361
2005 1,772

Those two examples serve to illustrate that, under the Clinton administration, with a Congress under pressure to do something about deficits, earmarks were largely checked, and even reduced. They began to creep back up as the deficit eased, but nothing like the syrup-in-the-petri-dish growth we've seen under "conservative" GOP government.

Okay, back to Remedial Reading Class:

I respect Congress's authority over the public purse, but the time has come to reform the earmark process and dramatically reduce the number of earmarks.

Reforming earmarks is the responsibility of both political parties. Over the past year, the Republican Congress succeeded in eliminating virtually all earmarks for three major Cabinet departments. And I'm pleased that Democratic leaders in Congress recently committed themselves to support reforms that would restore transparency and accountability to earmarks. For this year's budget, they pledged to maintain current levels of spending and not include any earmarks. And they agreed to a temporary moratorium on earmarks.

You see, it's really Republicans who've led the way on reducing earmarks. Three whole Cabinet-level departments. As the three departments aren't specified, we can assume they do not include Transportation, where bridges to nowhere continue to roll on, or Homeland Security, or Ag, or. . .

Junior does give a hat tip to Democrats who, in contrast to the Republicans' "success," have "pledged" to support spending reforms. Nice touch that, but bi-partisan bonhomie soon evaporates with a stamp of the Decider's foot:

This is a good start, but Congress needs to do much more. My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Ah, you see? Even my loyal Republican minions can only do so much. And can we really trust Democratic "pledges?" No, it will take the firm hand of restraint that only my administration can provide.

After all, look at all the frivolous spending I've already vetoed. Look at all the naked profiteering I've stopped in Defense and Homeland Security. Why, just look at all the pork I've cut from Agriculture.

Yeah, well. . .

The idea that the administration of George Junior Bush will somehow provide the guidance neccessary to curtail congressional excess, in the interest of reducing federal spending and curbing the deficit is, flatly, absurd.

Unless of course the Decider is simply drawing a line in the sand against the Democrats. We will hold the line against earmarks, now that we've lost the majority and aren't in the position to simply toss 'em into legislation in all-Republican conference meetings.

I am, in this as in so many virtuous pronouncements of our Decider, reminded of Claude Rains in "Casablanca," so "shocked, shocked" to discover there's been gambling going on in the place, as he pockets his winnings.

--Lou@LouLost.com