Stop the earmarks gravy train with executive order

Re: “An intervention against federal spending addiction,” Dec. 24

The Examiner has been writing about what can be done to eliminate earmarks, especially the more than 9,000 earmarks costing more than $7.5 billion contained in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill. President Bush can strike a blow against the earmark gravy train and do taxpayers a big favor if he can muster the audacity to sign an executive order telling federal agencies to ignore the earmarks that are contained in committee reports.

While most presidents struggle for relevancy during their final year in office, Bush would guarantee himself a place at the head of the table when it comes to the fiscal 2009 budget cycle; the next president would inherit a critically important waste-cutting tool; and best of all, the order would be wildly unpopular with the congressional grandees of earmarking from both parties who have been greedily feeding at the trough. Happy New Year, indeed!

Leslie Paige
Citizens Against Government Waste
Washington

Re: “An intervention against federal spending addiction,” Dec. 24

Republicans and Democrats in Washington agree on two issues: That budgetary earmarks are completely out of hand and that earmarks will continue by the thousands. The earmarks epidemic blossomed when Republicans ran Congress. Democrats pledged to end the epidemic, and yet there were more than 11,000 earmarks this year.

Congress can’t stop itself from earmarking, but the president can end the epidemic. Few earmarks are written in the law. The vast majority are written in accompanying conference reports. The affected federal agencies may ignore these earmarks, but they do so risking congressional games with their own budgets. The solution is for the president to issue an executive order to all federal agencies to disregard completely all earmarks not in statute.

President Bush can with an executive order largely end the earmarks embarrassment and waste of taxpayer dollars. He should sign it immediately and stop the waste.

Dr. J.D. Foster
The Heritage Foundation
Alexandria

Selective law enforcement in Palfrey case

Re: “Big personalities of 2007,” Dec. 28

Your “Big Personalities of 2007” section of the Dec. 28 Examiner mentions Deborah Jeane Palfrey. She is quite right about “... a powerful government unjustly attacking the little guy.” Her harassment by federal authorities is outrageous. It is not only cruelty against a private individual but a ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money. This is a case of selective enforcement. Did she offend some “influential” individuals?

Robert J. Jones
Washington

Religious schools, parents and undefined ‘humanism’

Re: “Don’t force religious parents to pay for nonreligious public schools,” Dec. 28

Alex Brown claims that “humanism,” which he does not define, “permeates the public schools.” How could this be possible when 85 percent of parents, taxpayers, teachers, administrators and school board members are Christians of one sort or another?

Brown also ducks the fact that his state’s (Virginia’s) constitution, thanks to Virginians Jefferson and Madison in the 18th century, clearly prohibits any form of tax aid to faith-based schools. If he doesn’t like that wise prohibition, he should urge his legislators to amend the state constitution, which of course they won’t because they know full well that the voters would defeat any such measure, as they have in every state where the issue has been on the ballot.

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring