dirty
EOG Master
By Holly Yeager and Edward Alden in Washington
Updated: 2:12 a.m. ET April 26, 2006
President George W. Bush yesterday threatened to use the first veto of his five-year presidency if the Senate refuses to cut back spending in an emergency bill to fund the war in Iraq and rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina.
In a statement issued on Tuesday night, the White House said Mr Bush would not approve the legislation if it exceeds $92.2bn, a target that would require the Senate to cut some $14bn from the bill.
The veto threat came following pressure from conservative activists, who warned on Tuesday that failure to rein in federal spending could keep frustrated Republican voters away from the polls in November's elections.
"The policies that are being pursued here are not only economically destructive, they're politically destructive, and ultimately there's going to be a political as well as an economic price paid by the folks who are engaged in this activity," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.
The $106bn Senate emergency spending bill is $15bn larger than legislation already approved by the House of Representatives. It includes many items that opponents say should not be included in emergency legislation, such as $4bn in farm subsidies and $700m for what has been dubbed Mississippi's "Road to Nowhere", a project favoured by the state's senators to relocate a recently repaired railroad line.
"This sort of nonsense is going to hurt Republicans," said David Keating, executive director of the Club for Growth, which supports Republican candidates who are fiscally conservative.
Backers of the additional money are "exploiting human tragedy", Mr Keene said, using it "as an opportunity for more special-interest spending".
Tom Coburn, Republican senator from Oklahoma, has vowed to try to remove the Mississippi project from the spending bill, and Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, told members of his party this week that the measure "should not be bogged down with extraneous amendments and unrelated provisions".
Mr Bush could find himself in an awkward position if the Senate does not relent, because a veto would threaten funding needed for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it underscored the depth of concern among some Republicans that voters think they have failed to control government spending.
At the same time, some Republican lawmakers see changes to the earmarks process ? including more transparency and the ability to remove individual projects ? as a central piece of lobbying and ethics reform measures. The power of lobbyists has grown, they argue, as lawmakers have increasingly submitted spending for the pet projects, with little scrutiny, into larger bills.
A proposal to reform the earmarks process is scheduled to be debated in the House on Thursday, as part of a lobbying reform effort.
But members of the House appropriations committee have objected, angry that such a move would dilute their power over government spending.
"They want to keep the ability to hide earmarks," Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican and critic of the pet projects, said of his colleagues who sit on the appropriations committee. "They don't want the scrutiny."
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
Updated: 2:12 a.m. ET April 26, 2006President George W. Bush yesterday threatened to use the first veto of his five-year presidency if the Senate refuses to cut back spending in an emergency bill to fund the war in Iraq and rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina.
In a statement issued on Tuesday night, the White House said Mr Bush would not approve the legislation if it exceeds $92.2bn, a target that would require the Senate to cut some $14bn from the bill.
The veto threat came following pressure from conservative activists, who warned on Tuesday that failure to rein in federal spending could keep frustrated Republican voters away from the polls in November's elections.
"The policies that are being pursued here are not only economically destructive, they're politically destructive, and ultimately there's going to be a political as well as an economic price paid by the folks who are engaged in this activity," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.
The $106bn Senate emergency spending bill is $15bn larger than legislation already approved by the House of Representatives. It includes many items that opponents say should not be included in emergency legislation, such as $4bn in farm subsidies and $700m for what has been dubbed Mississippi's "Road to Nowhere", a project favoured by the state's senators to relocate a recently repaired railroad line.
"This sort of nonsense is going to hurt Republicans," said David Keating, executive director of the Club for Growth, which supports Republican candidates who are fiscally conservative.
Backers of the additional money are "exploiting human tragedy", Mr Keene said, using it "as an opportunity for more special-interest spending".
Tom Coburn, Republican senator from Oklahoma, has vowed to try to remove the Mississippi project from the spending bill, and Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, told members of his party this week that the measure "should not be bogged down with extraneous amendments and unrelated provisions".
Mr Bush could find himself in an awkward position if the Senate does not relent, because a veto would threaten funding needed for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it underscored the depth of concern among some Republicans that voters think they have failed to control government spending.
At the same time, some Republican lawmakers see changes to the earmarks process ? including more transparency and the ability to remove individual projects ? as a central piece of lobbying and ethics reform measures. The power of lobbyists has grown, they argue, as lawmakers have increasingly submitted spending for the pet projects, with little scrutiny, into larger bills.
A proposal to reform the earmarks process is scheduled to be debated in the House on Thursday, as part of a lobbying reform effort.
But members of the House appropriations committee have objected, angry that such a move would dilute their power over government spending.
"They want to keep the ability to hide earmarks," Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican and critic of the pet projects, said of his colleagues who sit on the appropriations committee. "They don't want the scrutiny."
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.