Fred Thompson Says Bush Should Ignore Earmarks
GOP Candidate Says He Would Sign Executive Order
By Bluey Posted in 2008 | Earmarks | Fred Thompson | President Bush — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Just days after releasing a plan to reduce government spending, Fred Thompson continued his assault on earmarks, promising today that if elected president he would sign an executive order canceling lawmakers' pork-barrel projects. President Bush is considering the idea, which is strongly opposed by congressional appropriators but supported by fiscal conservatives.
Thompson fielded questions from bloggers during a conference call this afternoon. He was asked if he would issue an executive order instructing federal agencies to ignore the nearly 10,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill that was enacted in December.
Yes, yes. In fact, I've been talking about that. These earmarks are not part of the legislation. They have not been debated or had a chance for open and honest debate. They're not part of the law. And it comes out of the president's discretion to tell OMB to instruct the agencies to disregard whatever comes out of these committees in terms of those kinds of earmarks.
Thompson has been talking about earmarks all week following the release of his latest policy paper on government spending. He outlines three steps to halt the corrupting influence of earmarks, including a line-item veto, ignoring "soft" earmarks and promoting greater transparency.
Continued on the jump ...
1. Provide President with Line-Item Veto Authority. Congress can provide this authority without a Constitutional amendment. Such authority would better control spending and prevent the use of public funding for wasteful earmarks.
2. Direct Agencies to Ignore "Soft" Earmarks. "Soft" earmarks are those included in Congressional report language, but not in actual legislation. Failure to include such earmarks in the bill language itself makes it easier for Members of Congress to hide their earmarks and prevents the full House and Senate from voting on them. Federal agencies must not fund these "soft" earmarks unless they otherwise meet agency standards for a funding award.
3. Propose Legislation on Earmark Procedures. Promote greater transparency by urging Congress to approve legislation that requires the posting of all earmarks on the Internet for the public to view at least 24 hours before the underlying bill is brought to the floor for consideration.
Thompson's comments followed similar remarks from Sen. John McCain yesterday. Mike Huckabee was asked a similar question in December. At the time, he said, "I think some of them ought to be vetoed. If they can’t be vetoed, then ignore them." Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have also called for an end to earmarks, but have yet to address the question of an executive order directly.
Cross-posted on The Foundry.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The problem with McCain — Comments (120) »
Fred Thompson Says Bush Should Ignore Earmarks 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Listen, 12% nationally , after a handful of northern (read that BLUE-STATE) primaries, and after a media blackout -- including, insanely, FNC.....Fred's doing OK, and is in position to improve his lot. The primaries are heading to RED country, Fred has picked up his personal pace quite a bit. He's got an hour on Hannity today, Rush is pimping him, and we hear of some substantial endorsement coming tomorrow.
The top poller, lightweight Huckabee, is at 21%. We're not out of it.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
To the sentiment and the sighs.
SIGH
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
Don't give up yet.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
I pray...all I have left is pulling the lever March 4 in TX...
and go back to praying. My wistful sigh is that everywhere I go I hear:
he's right on most of the issues we care about or that matter...but he's not electable"
so, he's right...but he can't win...
SIGH
;-)
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I'm hopeful - not necessarily optimistic - that Fred will make a run in South Carolina. The debate tonight should be interesting - I expect him to be directing a good deal of fire at Huck & McCain.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Where, and what network?
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
for those of us without TVs (or cable).
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
He's got a record on it. It would be interesting to see if he was a "big offender" as a senator.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Congress should at least be forced to vote on their graft.
Get rid of earmarks, control spending. Sound familiar? I guess that's why Thompson supporrted McCain in 200.
Thompson is a good man, but it has to be McCain this time around. He's a steady (if sometimes misguided) voice for our unsteady times.
http://www.gorighty.com/401/46901.html
Support McCain!
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
1)Fred didn't broker the Gang of 14 deal...
2)never supported McCain/Kennedy shamnesty...
3)understands that the "g** d**n fence" at the border is also a national security issue...
4)supported the Bush tax cuts...
5)doesn't embrace the anti-growth global warming mantra...
6)wants to drill in ANWR...
7)doesn't really care what the liberal media thinks of him...
7)...and doesn't mind pouring water down the nostrils of a terrorist like KSM if it will make him cough up impending terrorist attacks (which it did)
But you're right--other than that they're just alike
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
8) Repudiated McCain-Feingold after seeing its effects
-
NARF
He repudiated it after he decided to run for President, or at least started to strongly think about it.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Would be a Big Time Loser.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Bob Dole was an annointed winner who never had to fight, never showed any fight, and never had any personality with the public.
John McCain is different on all three counts. If anything I think his debate style would be closer to Reagan's than Dole's, if I had to pick a previous candidate to compare with.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
But if things don't work out, who do you think Thompson is going to endorse. I know, the Politico story was hog wash, but I think Fred may endorse McCain if he has to end his campaign.
"Thompson's comments followed similar remarks from Sen. John McCain yesterday."
Thompson first said this on Tuesday, not today as this sentence suggests. He said it again today. You can figure that out by reading this post and following the link to Fred08, but I thought it should be mentioned that Fred was the first of the candidates to state this outright, at least based on anything I can find.
Great stuff from Thompson. He should use this in the SC debate to gain the high ground on the spending issue. This EO would be a huge winner. The candidates should be tripping over each other to say he would be the bigger earmark slayer!
Great to see it high-profiled here. When I consider any likely scenario in November that doesn't include Senator Thompson, my tummy gets queasy.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Isn't this whole thing over earmarks just a red herring? The reason I say this is it will work exactly once since after that the negotiation for pork projects will occur in the original budget bill and thus be explicitly named. Therefor when funded in the final passed spending bill the President would have to implement them or violate his Constitutional duties.
It's still a good political move, but pretty meaningless as a pledge going forward. If you want a REAL pledge, then a guaranteed veto of any spending bill with pork in it would make more sense...
It is a great first step, because it makes it harder for congresspeople to hide their earmarks and makes it so they HAVE to be voted on. Only step one, but a step in the right direction.
and McCain really is NOT on his game tonight.
More Fred!
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Fred is ON!
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus