Fred Thompson on Earmarks

Audio: Fred Thompson on Earmarks
Posted on January 9th, 2008By Sean Hackbarth in Government Reform, Budget
Yesterday, Fred spoke out on Congress’ excessive spending. Their latest trick is to stick thousands of earmarks into committee conference reports instead of the actual bill. They’re called “soft” earmarks. John Campbell points out the Congressional Research Service “stated that earmarks placed into committee reports do not have the force of law.” Fred asked President Bush to only fund earmarks that are actually in the spending bills. That’s common sense to you and me.

This issue gives me an opportunity to let you know about Fred’s latest policy paper. Fred Thompson has become the only Republican candidate with a substantial plan to reduce federal spending. One element is earmark reform:

1. Provide President with Line-Item Veto Authority. Congress can provide this authority without a Constitutional amendment. Such authority would better control spending and prevent the use of public funding for wasteful earmarks.
   
2. Direct Agencies to Ignore “Soft” Earmarks. “Soft” earmarks are those included in Congressional report language, but not in actual legislation. Failure to include such earmarks in the bill language itself makes it easier for Members of Congress to hide their earmarks and prevents the full House and Senate from voting on them. Federal agencies must not fund these “soft” earmarks unless they otherwise meet agency standards for a funding award.
   
3. Propose Legislation on Earmark Procedures. Promote greater transparency by urging Congress to approve legislation that requires the posting of all earmarks on the Internet
   

Read the entire paper. A Fred Thompson administration would work to end wasteful spending and force Washington to live within its means. [source]

It looks like while all the other candidates have been busy performing dog and pony shows for the media, Fred Thompson has been busy thinking and writing of ways to keep government from wasting your money. Hmm, I don't know about you, but I think this more presidential.