Comments on: Bush to Issue Earmarks Executive Order

By: rodney dill

rodney dill — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:47:13 +0000

Its good that he's starting something in the right direction on earmarks/port.

It would've been better soon, but this is better as he's headed out the door at the end of next year, when an incoming president would likely just countermand it.

It's more of a partisan move to do it after only after someone from the opposition is elected.

By: tom p

tom p — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:28:16 +0000

This mess is never going to end, as long as nobody in gov't has the balls to say "I am going to do what is best for the Nation, not what is best for my next reelection bid." I too find it rather politically expedient for Bush to put his foot down now... Tho I have to point out that when Nancy and Harry came to their positions of leadership they were all about "PAYGO"... at least until they ran up against Bush's first veto threat. Out the door went that idea!

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:03:46 +0000

Ah. Apparently Bush is making an executive order for future budgets, of which Bush will have exactly... none.

Typical, he's just dumping another mess into the lap of the person to follow him. Now the next president either has to maintain the executive order thus prompting the showdown with congress that Bush didn't have the balls for, or they rescind it and get tarred as pro-earmark.

By: James K

James K — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:58:56 +0000

To DC Loser: Sounds like you need a helping of common sense.
Is it pork, like most "earmarks", or is it truly beneficial to the general population? If it's pork, blow the whistle.
I don't care what party you want to affifiate yourself with, just don't let selfishness creep into policy.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:43:55 +0000

So what is my office supposed to do with the multiple $$ in earmarks got from a certain Republican senator for his home state?

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:30:38 +0000

It is a reasonable move and many years too late.

The timing makes it look like a partisan move. He seems to be saying; it is fine to move as much pork as you want as long as Republicans are in charge and the bulk of the pork goes to protect Republican incumbency, but it must be stopped if the shoe is on the other foot.

By: Steve Plunk

Steve Plunk — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:50:00 +0000

It is a small step in the right direction. Even though the earmarks are built in it could help break the link of pork to campaign contributions. It is late but I don't know if we can ever say too late.

This coupled with all donations being anonymous would change the culture in Washington.

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:49:39 +0000

Considering that this is picking a fight with *ALL* of congress, not just the dems, I think it's a bonehead move by Bush. He's been relying on the senate reps to sustain filibuster after filibuster against dem legislation.

Will they now that the president is cutting off the money they use to get re-elected?

By: James K

James K — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:49:10 +0000

'Bout time. This "earmark" thing has got to be reined in.
Perhaps this action by President Bush will draw the neccessary attention to this unethical practice so it can be brought to a halt.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:20:40 +0000

So are you arguing he shouldn't do this superdestroyer? Or are you of the opinion that beating up on people who do what you think should be done is the way to motivate them and others?

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:11:06 +0000

First, it is seven years too late. Second, the President has no credibility in doing this while the Democrats are in charge of the budget process instead of doing it while the Republicans were in charge.

Too little, too late. How about vetoing ever budget that is not balanced.