Bush's hypocrisy on earmarks
It took George Bush seven years in the White House to notice that the federal budget contains pork-barrel spending. Purely by coincidence I'm sure, it was not until after the Democrats had gained control of Congress that the president decided to focus his attention on budget items of questionable validity. In his State of the Union speech last month, he pledged to veto any spending bill with pork-barrel spending he didn't like.
Earmarks grew eightfold from 1994 through 2006; although both parties use pork to endear members to the voters in their districts, it bears noting that this explosion in earmarks happened under GOP control of the Congress, but for some reason, it's only become an issue now that the Democrats control both houses.
I'm sure that's a coincidence.
Today, the New York Times reported that Bush's 2009 budget proposal contains thousands of his own earmarks; the total cost of Bush's pork is unknown, but it's likely to amount to billions of dollars. The White House claims that its pork-barrel spending is distinct from Congressional pork-barrel spending because executive agencies spend lots of time and effort studying various proposals and weighing their impact.
That excuse doesn't even pass the snicker test.
Federal spending can be effective, useful, and productive when targeted at actual specific needs, whether it's disease research or building decently engineered levees around flood-prone areas. But items like Bush's proposed $6.5 million to "study the fundamental properties of asphalt" rings just as hollow as Senator Ted Stevens's infamous "bridge to nowhere." The White House has no room to criticize anybody on the issue of wasteful spending.