The truth about Riders, aka Congressional waste

http://www.2partyreform.blogspot.com/ finding practical ways to move from a republic towards a democracy and holding the media accountable for substantive, critical reporting of important issues....

I for one never knew until a few weeks ago that congressional riders were never part of actual appropriations bills, therefore not able to be signed into law by the president. They are the equivalent of memos to the executive branch so technically the money doesn't have to be spent on what it was "meant" for. Leave it to u.s. legislators to create the ultimate in waste and make sure it's not even part of the legislation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119811356177641129.html?mod=Review-Outlook-US

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119846367561248283-lMyQjAxMDE3OTI4NTQyNjUzWj.html


....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119811356177641129.html?mod=Review-Outlook-US

The End of Earmarks?
December 20, 2007; Page A16

For those of us fated to watch annual State of the Union addresses, the most entertaining moments are when the Members all rise to cheer and applaud a Presidential statement they know is popular but they also know will never happen. Such a moment occurred in January, when President Bush declared:
"Over 90% of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. . . . The time has come to end this practice."
The Members whooped it up, with wide ironic grins, and even Mr. Bush had to smile at the spectacle. Well, here's an idea: How about if Mr. Bush now demonstrates that he meant what he said by making the Members live up to their applause?
The President has the opportunity to do this as part of the $516 billion omnibus spending bill that Congress passed this week. That bill contains 8,993 special-interest earmarks, but most of them aren't even in the language of the law itself. Instead, they are part of an accompanying 500-page "committee report" compiled by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and staff. We doubt most Members have even seen the report.
Mr. Bush has said he'll sign the actual spending bill, but that doesn't mean he and his executive branch must spend that money on the earmarks in the committee report. A December 18 legal analysis by attorney Todd Tatelman for the Congressional Research Service concludes that "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment -- they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies." In plainer English, this means committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and "presented" to the President for signing.
This means Mr. Bush has the legal authority not to fund these projects, which lack the force of law. Mr. Bush's own budget office has asserted this authority before. Earlier this year, then budget director Rob Portman instructed federal agencies that they could disregard committee report language on earmarks. "Unless a project or activity is specifically identified in statutory text, agencies should not obligate funds on the basis of earmarks contained in Congressional reports or documents," Mr. Portman wrote. That's why there were fewer earmarks last year.
Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the money appropriated by Congress. But they could choose to spend those dollars on higher priorities that would benefit all taxpayers, rather than on favors for special interests or political donors. For example, the $700,000 for a bike trail in Minneapolis could be used to rebuild the collapsed bridge in that city and to strengthen others.
We hear the White House is exploring this option and that some in the Senate are urging him to take it. This won't make the President popular with Appropriators in either party, but it isn't as if he needs to store political capital for a reform agenda in his last year in office. Taxpayers would be grateful that someone is finally trying to discipline an earmark process that wastes money and has a record of inviting corruption. Mr. Bush has both the law and public opinion on his side.

.....

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119846367561248283-lMyQjAxMDE3OTI4NTQyNjUzWj.html

The GOP and EarmarksDecember 24, 2007; Page A10
There's been quite a fuss over our Thursday editorial, "The End of Earmarks?", which recommended a way that President Bush could instruct federal agencies not to fund these special-interest projects sponsored by Members of Congress. No word yet about Senators leaping in protest from the Capitol Dome, but give it time.
Mr. Bush picked up the theme in his Thursday press conference by criticizing Congress for dropping 9,800 earmarks into its last-minute "omnibus" spending bill -- 11,900 if you include earmarks in the previously passed defense bill. "Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks," Mr. Bush said. "And they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress." He added that he has asked his budget director, Jim Nussle, "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."
That's promising, and we're told there's a debate in the White House over what to do. Our suggestion is that Mr. Bush instruct his cabinet not to spend money on earmarks that aren't specifically mentioned in the language of the spending bill. Most are listed in accompanying Appropriations Committee reports that lack the force of law. The point of this Congressional ruse, in part, is to let Members "air-drop" earmarks at the last minute and thus escape scrutiny by other Members who might try to expose their "Bridges to Nowhere" on the House or Senate floor. Mr. Bush assailed this habit in this year's State of the Union address, and the Members cheered. So why not force Congress to live up to its applause?
Some in the White House fear that such a move would sour relations with Congress, including GOP leaders who love their earmarks as much as Democrats do. We hear that senior Republicans, especially in the Senate, have told the White House that if Mr. Bush refuses to fund these earmarks, he will be courting retribution. There's a reason no Members will make this threat in public, however. They know how unpopular earmarking is with the voting public.
Meanwhile, 19 taxpayer groups and individuals have written an open letter to Mr. Bush picking up on our proposal. The letter asks the President to issue "an executive order formally directing all Federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee reports and statements of managers. Such an action is within your Constitutional powers, and would strike a blow for fiscal responsibility now while setting a valuable precedent for the future."
Congress would be able to rewrite the budget to add earmarks in formal legislative language. But at least then earmarks would be challengeable on the floor. Asked by CNBC's Larry Kudlow last week about earmarks, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell replied that, "Well, there certainly have been some bad earmarks in the past. But you've got to remember, you can knock out all the earmarks, and it wouldn't save any money."
Well, $7.4 billion is real money where we come from, and that misses the way in which earmarks have become opportunities for corruption (felon Duke Cunningham) and an incentive for logrolling that increases overall spending. Mr. Bush and the GOP can take one more step toward restoring their fiscal credentials by striking a blow against "nonlegislative" earmarks.