Here is progressive champion and perennial favourite Dianne Feinstein on CNN:
BLITZER: Senator Feinstein, [...] Why did you oppose a freeze on those so-called earmarks?
FEINSTEIN: Well, for two reasons. [...] I try to prioritize [earmark requests], see that they have a regional impact, [...] Now, you can either say that the president is the only one that does a budget, and the Congress is entirely left out of it. The only way the Congress is in it is if the Congress can make selective and critical and prioritize adds to the budget.
Now she might be one of the worst earmark offenders and might have made this argument disingenuously, but she is completely right.
If Congress cannot earmark, than that means only the President can do so.
To get a sense of how horrible this would be, imagine Karl Rove in charge of earmarks. He wasn't shy about giving Lorita Doan a powerpoint presentation of endangered Republicans to bolster, think he would have hesitated to spend unrestricted tax dollars to demand loyalty and obedience from Congress? Of course he would.
And what about our lobbyist friends? Well, if Congress can't earmark, lobbying of congress would dry up. The media would use this as "proof" that McCain's no-earmark policies have really cleaned up washington. Yet the lobbyists won't have gone home, tails between legs. They'll just move to the White House.
There is already a lot of very fair concern of the Executive branch dominance of government in America. Giving McCain a line item veto and a mandate to veto all earmark-bills (or clauses) would constitute a further significant shift of power. The President would be able to arm twist Democrats in purple and red districts to an outrageous degree. Think the Bush Dogs are bad now? Imagine when half the Democratic caucus start voting like that.
Now Obama's take, which is a better approach:
Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
Transparency is a much more appealing solution than "transferrancy." The only problem is the current mindset and playing field on this issue will favour McCain's approach. The media will much prefer big Daddy McCain stamping down those pesky legislators, and Obama's approach will be written off as mere red tape and paperwork which won't cut down on earmarks. So it is imporant that progressives understand why McCain's approach is wrong and undemocratic. The constitution gives Congress control over spending, not the President.
This is also another reminder that whenever conservatives propose policies to reform government, it always results in a power grab for conservatives. It's never about clean government, just more stacking the institutional deck in their favour. Another quote from that WaPo piece quoting McCain:
"I think we should protect Americans from partisan Democrat tax increases by requiring a three-fifths majority vote. But if I am president, the same veto pen that works on pork-barrel spending will send those partisan taxes right back to the Congress."
As Paul Rosenburg pointed out once (on a different subject but it applies here too):
They are all about The Triumph of the Will. It's not that they're Nazis. They're nihilists. They have nothing but scorn for anyone who believes in anything. Pure self-assertion is the sum of their "philosophy." (See, also, Narcissitic Personality Disorder.)
|
STATE BLOGS
