It seems that some on the Left (and we’re looking at you, ThinkProgress) have forgotten how federal budgeting works. They’re trying to turn Senator McCain’s promise to veto all bills with earmarks into a statement that he won’t provide any financial aid to Israel:
While there is no universally-agreed-upon definition of an earmark, the gist is pretty simple. Slate says that “the word ‘earmark’ refers to any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing.” The House Rules Committee references the Congressional Research Service, and says that to earmark is to “set aside funds for a specific purpose, use, or recipient.” Now comes the tricky part: If Congress appropriates money to the federal government, and does not earmark the money, it is leaving it to the discretion of the president how to spend it. The president could even choose to spend it on an initiative that has at other times been earmarked. Thus, if a hypothetical president–let’s call him “Bohn McBain”–vetoed a bill that earmarked assistance for a hypothetical country–let’s call it “Bisrael”–he could still provide assistance to Bisrael through his own discretion. If the president vetoes a bill that earmarks for highway projects, his Department of Transportation could still provide funding for some of those very same projects–through grants at the discretion of the president. Much of federal spending works this way. If this is the best that the Left can do in attacking McCain–along with age insults–then they’re in worse trouble than we thought.
