This just came in over the transom...

The President is apparently going to outline significant steps towards meaningful earmark reform during tonight's State of the Union address. While such reform is welcome, I am compelled to wonder, why now? Why weren't earmarks a high priority item back when Republicans controlled congress... back before the orgy of spending that has taken place during the past 7 years? Perhaps the only comfort I can derive from this 11th hour attempt at fiscal responsibility is that it's better late than never.

Below is an excerpt from White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino's gaggle this morning.

EXCERPT ON EARMARKS

MS. PERINO:  Let's see, one thing I will let you know -- you probably have already heard, we are confirming this morning that the President in the State of the Union will announce unprecedented steps he's taking to reform and reduce the amount of earmarks.  The President will say that if these spending items are worthy, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.  He will state his commitment to veto any spending bill that does not succeed in cutting earmarks in half from 2008 levels, and he will announce that tomorrow -- on Tuesday -- he will issue an executive order directing agencies to ignore any future earmarks included in report language, but not in the legislation, which is traditionally how they end up on the books.

QUESTION:  So on the earmarks, he said at the end of last year that he was directing OMB to look and see what they could do to reduce the earmarks that Congress had passed last year.  You suggested the thing that he's doing tonight, or announcing tonight in the State of the Union, addresses future earmarks.  What happened to the plan to tackle earmarks last year?

MS. PERINO:  The President decided that he needed to give the Congress a very clear indication of what he was going to do.  Last year he called on Congress to voluntarily cut the number of earmarks in half; they did not do that.  The President will not go retrospectively back to the earmarks that were in the omnibus, but he will take this action for 2009 appropriations.

Remember, an executive order remains in place unless a future President decides to rescind it or change it.  So we think this is a good, solid action, and it's a good way to do business, in terms of signaling exactly to Congress what you plan to do and then taking further action if they -- since they didn't voluntarily reduce the number of earmarks.

UPDATE (6:20 pm - 01/28/08): The President just delivered his final State of the Union address and threatened to veto any appropriations bill that didn't cut the number of earmarks in half. He also indicated he was issuing an Executive Order about the issue tomorrow. Again, I ask why now? Why all of a sudden is Bush using his veto power on matters of fiscal responsibility? If only he had used the bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of such restraint... about 7 years ago.