WASHINGTON - Government-spending watchdogs yesterday swiftly condemned President Bush's announcement of a new initiative against congressional earmarking of funds for pet projects, saying that the White House's plan was empty rhetoric because it will not kick in until Bush is about to leave office.
"He had an opportunity to really take a stand . . . and we're disappointed that he didn't take that opportunity," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers of Common Sense. "Unfortunately, this is the standard Washington game where you do something to make it appear like you are making a difference, whereas in reality you're not doing anything."
In his State of the Union address, Bush declared that in the future, the executive branch will no longer honor earmarks that lawmakers slip into committee reports but do not write into the official bill - as about 90 percent of earmarks have been handled. He also pledged to veto any future spending bills if they do not cut the total number of earmarks in half from previous levels.
But Bush decided not to touch more than 11,000 earmarks totaling about $16 billion that Congress added to the just-completed 2008 budget, as watchdog groups had urged him to do. Since Congress won't pass more spending bills until the end of this year, Bush will not be president when it comes time to wage the political fight necessary to turn his threat into a reality.
One Republican senator who has frequently criticized pork-barrel spending, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, reacted angrily to the revelation that Bush's plan would not include taking any action on this year's earmarks.
"Congressmen are in jail today for taking bribes for earmarks, yet Congress and this president are allowing thousands of special interest projects this year for bike paths, museums, baseball parks, and golf charities while our economic growth is slowing," said DeMint in a statement.
He added, "I am glad the President is pledging once again to veto spending bills that don't cut earmarks in half, but it may be too late since Congress may not send him many spending bills this year."
Critics of earmarking argue that the practice leads to corruption and wastes taxpayer money by tying up funds on low-priority projects. If earmarking were eliminated, lawmakers would lose some of their power over spending, while the president and executive agencies would gain more authority to decide how to spend their annual budgets. But Bush's proposal yesterday made clear that such a change will not happen on Bush's watch.
Still, Ohio State University law professor Peter Shane said that Bush's executive order could have some impact a year from now. If Bush's successor decides to allow earmarking to continue, perhaps to avoid a fight with Congress, he or she will still have to pay the political price of rescinding Bush's order, Shane said.
Indeed, in a briefing earlier yesterday, Ed Gillespie, a Bush political aide, said, "This will be on the books, and will be an executive order that future presidents will have to repeal or live with."
But opponents of earmarking said they were hoping for stronger action from Bush.
David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a national nonpartisan group that tracks the favors politicians give to campaign donors, derided the proposal as "disingenuous" and "ineffective" in light of Bush's record of signing many previous budget bills that contained billions of dollars in earmarks.
"This is a president who is looking for headlines, not change," he said.
