Earmark Debate a Mixed Bag for White House

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

It's back to the drawing board in the Congress, as the two parties and the two chambers need to figure out how to fund the government for the next year.

Last night Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the collection of spending bills, called the omnibus bill, from the floor because much-needed Republican support eroded as the furor over earmarks in the bill made Republicans balk.

While the decision is not a clear loss for the Democrats, or a clear win for the GOP -- as political pundits will decide who won the earmark showdown -- it's not great for the White House. The Obama administration loses a political chip to use against the Republicans who have been loud in opposition to earmarks while quietly requesting millions of dollars worth of them. It's also not great for the administration because the bill that got scrapped was necessary for the Defense Department to fund its shifting priorities.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the omnibus was better than the alternative spending measure, which was a year-long continuation of the current spending levels. "We have very little flexibility to move money around the Pentagon budget without getting congressional approval for reprogrammings, which is always a complicated and time-consuming process," he said.

But now, the congressional approval process will likely begin in a few months; the most likely outcome of the failed omnibus will be that the current spending is extended only a few months, so the new Congress will get to decide what to spend money on.

This is a place where the White House may have secretly won in the battle over earmarks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday reiterated the president's opposition to earmarks, but said he would have signed the earmark-laden omnibus bill anyway because of the needs of the Pentagon. "The president would strongly prefer a piece of legislation that doesn't contain any of those earmarks," said Gibbs.

Here's how the White House could win the showdown over earmarks: If the House and Senate do away with earmarks, they aren't necessarily arguing to do away with the spending, just the power of individual members of Congress to allocate tax dollars to causes of their choice, often without scrutiny. Leaving that power to -- you guessed it -- the executive branch.

Sen. Reid attacked this idea yesterday, arguing that the Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the money and that giving up the power cedes the responsibility to the executive, i.e. the Obama Administration. Therefore, many in Congress aren't necessarily saying don't spend it (even though they are hoping that's the outcome), they are simply giving up the right to decide how it's spent, because often that process is abused.

On this point, former Democratic Congressman Martin Frost put it another way in Politico: "The argument against earmarks has always been a sham. Eliminating them does not, in of itself, cut federal spending," he wrote. "Earmarks are not 'add-ons' (extra spending) but merely the direction of funds already agreed upon as appropriated levels. Eliminating them just transfers power from the legislative branch to the executive branch which will now have even greater authority to determine where federal dollars go."

He added that while the White House may like the power to decide where the money goes, the extra scrutiny that comes with it may not be a welcome thing. "Somewhere deep in the federal bureaucracy, people are now repeating the immortal words of Br'er Rabbit: 'Please don't throw me into that briar patch,'" wrote Frost.

---

Robert Hendin is a CBS News senior political producer. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here. You can also follow him on Twitter here.

[citizenusa-2009]

I know of three families with children whose parents lost their jobs THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, who are now THANKING GOD for President Obama. Because their unemployment was reinstated (after our President was blackmailed by the Republicans), these kids will be able to have food and shelter for Christmas!!

You morons who back the GOP are just plain ignorant. If and when you lose your jobs, it will be interesting to see how you react when your Republicans REFUSE to help.

You are like a bunch of women who allow themselves to be beaten because you "love" your man, no matter what.

I do hope the 9.8 million who are currently unemployed remember this day and vote for Obama when re-election day comes around.

[jgg000101]

actually, they should be mad at obama because he has done absolutely nothing to help your friends get back to work. Although I certainly feel sorry for your friends, people should be able to find a job within 3 years. Unfortunately, unemployment benefits are becoming a new welfare program. And in my humble opinion, the best welfare program is no welfare program.

[ouchitatom]

All you non rich republicans pull down your shorts and donate to your party . You wanted the win now you have it along with the rest of the country on both sides of the aisle. Is this funny? The ugly head of greed has finally reared and now you republicans that don't make up the rich can bend over next to your democrat neighbor.

[oldbasicgal]

I'd rather bend over to the republicans than bend over to my next door neighbor Democrat.

[simpleconservative]

Obama promised to end earmarks. Tell me he would never have signed this bill anyway. Oops, I forgot, he is not above prevarication!

[thebob-bob]

The Big Lie.
Republicans are against earmarks.
Republicans are against deficit spending.

[oldbasicgal]

It shouldn't be a debate. How hard can it be?

Read our lips: NO MORE EARMARKS. NO MORE PORK BARREL PROJECTS.
One bill, one issue, please. No more piggy-backing.

DONE.

There, really, really simple.

[Past80]

What all of you seem to overlook is the fact that without earmarks politicians would not be able to get Federal dollar for projects in their state. Sure some of them are a big waste of taxpayers money, but the next time you see a project being done where you live just remember it was probably done with earmarks.

I am all for weeding out the bad one and they can start by stopping by not allowing them to be inserted into bills after they have been passed.

[oldbasicgal]

What you seem to overlook is the fact that this is JUST what we are trying to stop...pet projects for pet states. If it isn't something of INTERSTATE nature, it doesn't need to be done by Federal Funds.