[besson3c]

Apparently last year in Bush's State of the Union he said that he wants to cut federal earmarks (i.e. pork barrel pet projects) in half. Lo and behold, in the following year a spending bill was approved with only 11,000 earmarks!

Apparently tonight Bush will promise us that he will veto spending bills that have more than half of the current level of earmarks, except this will only be in effect for next year's spending bill when he is gone.

Lame. It is insulting to think that we are going to be delighted at his mere gesturing at a problem that he clearly has had no interest in solving.

Add this to a very long list of reasons why this presidency has been a complete and utter failure.

[Chuckit]

So you're saying you want to elect him to another term so he can continue the policy?

[besson3c]

Exactly!


Actually, I'm more so completely stunned that there would be 11,000 earmarks in the first place, and that Bush would have the balls to let it go after talking up cutting them in half.

How can a politician sleep at night knowing that something like state highway repairs or something are being put on the federal spending bill?

[vmarks]

Hi Besson3c,

Earmarks and pork barrel spending is how Congressmen come home to their districts and boast about how they're "looking out for you, my constituents, when I'm in Washington!"

They rely on them in order to get re-elected. No one gets re-elected based on 'look how little I did for you.'

The only way they could frame that would be 'look at how much less we took from you' after a tax-cut - but you have to remember that Congressmen frame a tax hike that was less than they had hoped for as a tax-cut, even if the net result is that they're taking more.

So, if it had been 22,000 in the previous year, I would not have been surprised at all.
Cutting to 11,000 is pleasing, if it is a reduction. Working to cut that in half again is even better.

[besson3c]

It wasn't 22,000 in the previous year, it was less. Earmarks have gone up.

[vmarks]

"Last year I asked you to voluntarily cut earmarks in half" - "This time if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number of earmarks in half, I will veto it."

So, I don't have a problem with this. He's saying that he told Congress his intentions last year, and hoped they would comply. This time, he's going to use the power of his office to see his intentions enacted.

[besson3c]

Why not enact them for this current year then?

[vmarks]

He can't retroactively apply a veto. He can only apply it going forward. Which is what he said he intends to do. Tonight, he put Congress on notice on this issue.

[besson3c]

vmarks, no offense, but your Bush apology is extremely lame (and I think you know this).

Bush could have come through on his word at any time prior to tonight's speech, he had all year to make sure that there would not be earmarks, and he could have simply vetoed the bill once he saw that it did.

Sorry, but I do not accept inept government behavior, nor do I apologize for it regardless of whether there is a R or D in front of your name.

[vmarks]

Inept and government go together almost without saying.

After all, this was the Congress that was going to radically change everything within their first 100 days in office. And they accomplished almost none of their goals.

Yes, Mr. Bush could have employed his veto far more frequently in his two terms than he did.

I wish he would have on several occasions. Instead, he chose to use it rarely.

I cannot recall off the top of my head anything that he vetoed in his first term. There may have been a bill, but I can't even think of what it might have been.

Now he's declaring that this is going to be his legacy: He's going to use his veto to ensure that people know Bush reduced earmarks. He said it outright - if he does it and Congress sticks to it, we'll be on track for a balanced budget in 2012.

That's legacy building, and it's a shame he didn't start earlier. But he didn't, and now he's putting Congress on notice that they'll be to blame if it doesn't come to fruition.

Still, I have a hard time condemning him for taking action late, when no one before him has bothered to do it either.

Earmarks have been a part of doing business in Washington. Ending that completely is going to be tough. A president near the end of his term is in a good position to do it since he's got no other policies he needs to get voted through on political favors - he's going out and knows it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Now he's declaring that this is going to be his legacy: He's going to use his veto to ensure that people know Bush reduced earmarks. He said it outright - if he does it and Congress sticks to it, we'll be on track for a balanced budget in 2012.

That's legacy building, and it's a shame he didn't start earlier. But he didn't, and now he's putting Congress on notice that they'll be to blame if it doesn't come to fruition.

It's not legacy building, or he would have done it before. Nobody will forget that he used to fully support earmarks when they were going to Republican districts.

This is a good reason for having a split Congress and presidency, it puts some budgetary brakes on. But as soon as they aren't split, it will be back to business as usual---that's Bush's legacy.

[vmarks]

It is legacy building. It's his attempt to shape his legacy as he goes out.

Clinton did the same thing by trying to make Peace in the Middle East at the last hour of his Presidency.

He tried to shape what his role in the history books would be. So is Bush attempting to do so now, with the reduce earmarks-balanced budget by 2012 policy pronouncement. That's what legacy building is.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How can a politician sleep at night knowing that something like state highway repairs or something are being put on the federal spending bill?

On a bed made of $100 bills?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It is legacy building. It's his attempt to shape his legacy as he goes out.

Clinton did the same thing by trying to make Peace in the Middle East at the last hour of his Presidency.

He tried to shape what his role in the history books would be. So is Bush attempting to do so now, with the reduce earmarks-balanced budget by 2012 policy pronouncement. That's what legacy building is.

Your example is incomparable. Clinton's peace initiative was international with no bearing on the domestic vote. Bush's pronouncement is just in time when his party can no longer reap the benefits. Almost a last minute "Eff you guys! I'm a uniter!" Great legacy. He should get a place on the $1000 bill when they have to reintroduce it.

[vmarks]

The difference is, Clinton attempted to shape a legacy on something that he was unable to achieve.

Bush can try and form his legacy on something he can follow through on- his promise to veto, and his assurance that if Congress sticks to his plan, he will be responsible for a balanced budget in 2012.

Wouldn't you agree that if you're going to try and build a legacy, to make one based on things you can have some control over (like a veto) ?

[Dakar the Fourth]

That's kind of like asking would you prefer that someone swing for the stands, or bunt in the hopes of getting on base.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

That's kind of like asking would you prefer that someone swing for the stands, or bunt in the hopes of getting on base.

I would say it's more like an outgoing manager trading away your star players and saying you're rebuilding. Why did the manager sign high dollar bandaid contracts for the previous 7 years and never rebuild? Simple. To keep the fans happy and screw over the new guys when his management team is getting fired.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It is legacy building. It's his attempt to shape his legacy as he goes out.

Clinton did the same thing by trying to make Peace in the Middle East at the last hour of his Presidency.

He tried to shape what his role in the history books would be. So is Bush attempting to do so now, with the reduce earmarks-balanced budget by 2012 policy pronouncement. That's what legacy building is.

How on Earth is it legacy building? It's more like trying to keep the lid on an overflowing trash can of ****... AFAIK, the problem got progressively worse each year under his watch. To try to curtail the problem to amount to less of a gaping difference between now and the time he took office isn't legacy building, it's damage control.

I'm just wondering, do you feel a compelling reason to defend Bush here, or do you really feel that somebody could objectively look at this problem differently?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The difference is, Clinton attempted to shape a legacy on something that he was unable to achieve.

Bush can try and form his legacy on something he can follow through on- his promise to veto, and his assurance that if Congress sticks to his plan, he will be responsible for a balanced budget in 2012.

Wouldn't you agree that if you're going to try and build a legacy, to make one based on things you can have some control over (like a veto) ?

So in other words: "Hey, look over there... A BIRD!!!"

I never once mentioned Clinton in this thread, this is about Bush. If Bush does indeed have less repugnantly smelly turds than Clinton this does not take away from the fact that turds stink.

[nonhuman]

So are you going to complain if he actually follows through on this and vetoes bills with too many earmarks? I'm with vmarks; sure it could have happened sooner, but at least it's happening at all!

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think its the hypocrisy about it. Isn't it convenient that he won't be in the White House to deal with any side-effects the reduced budget might have?

[nonhuman]

Yeah, the next president is really going to suffer with that burden of increased solvency.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Touché

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So in other words: "Hey, look over there... A BIRD!!!"

I never once mentioned Clinton in this thread, this is about Bush. If Bush does indeed have less repugnantly smelly turds than Clinton this does not take away from the fact that turds stink.

Actually, this thread is about legacy building. Legacy building is a politically timed strategy designed to shape the way people remember a Presidency.

I would have liked for Bush to have attempted this much earlier in his Presidency. If he's doing it on principle, then the principle was valid the day he was elected. But he isn't. Instead, he's doing it so that people remember him.

Clinton's legacy building attempt was timed in exactly the same way. My using Mr. Clinton as an example was not to distract, but to illustrate that you're being mad at politicians for being politicians.

This is the nature of outgoing politicians, especially Presidents of late.

[tie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Bush can try and form his legacy on something he can follow through on- his promise to veto, and his assurance that if Congress sticks to his plan, he will be responsible for a balanced budget in 2012.

I still can't agree. First of all, Bush will certainly not be responsible for a balanced budget in 2012, and I don't think there are any credible predictions that his plan would lead to a balanced budget. Bush has increased government spending more than any other president in history. He came in with a balanced budget and turned it into record deficits. Even if a Democratic president does manage to balance the budget by 2012, no historian would ever credit Bush.

Second, Bush will likely not have the opportunity to veto budget bills, since they will be put off until the next president is elected.

Bush already has a legacy. Fiscal responsibility is not part of it.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by tie 

I still can't agree. First of all, Bush will certainly not be responsible for a balanced budget in 2012, and I don't think there are any credible predictions that his plan would lead to a balanced budget. Bush has increased government spending more than any other president in history. He came in with a balanced budget and turned it into record deficits. Even if a Democratic president does manage to balance the budget by 2012, no historian would ever credit Bush.

Second, Bush will likely not have the opportunity to veto budget bills, since they will be put off until the next president is elected.

Bush already has a legacy. Fiscal responsibility is not part of it.

That doesn't stop him from trying to build one. We're not talking about what his legacy will be - we're talking about why he's made this declaration. It's his attempt to build his legacy.

If conditions happen that earmarks are attached to bills, and they are not cut in half, he says he will exercise his veto.
He claims his plan will lead to a balanced budget in 2012. His plan, and by extension he, would be responsible for such a thing if it were to come to pass.

I don't suspect that it will come to pass (Democrats aren't exactly famed for fiscal responsibility either.)

But that doesn't change the fact that he's trying to establish his legacy.

[besson3c]

vmarks: what do you say to the notion that his "legacy" is simply damage control, in this specific case?

[vmarks]

You could cast every President's legacy building efforts as damage control, in as much as you could cast every President's actions throughout the course of an administration as damage control.

I think that's a pretty poor notion. A better one is to question the timing, and whether or not it's hypocritical that Presidents wait until the end of their Presidency to do such things.

It's partly the timing that makes it legacy building rather than a hallmark of a person's Presidency.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

He claims his plan will lead to a balanced budget in 2012. His plan, and by extension he, would be responsible for such a thing if it were to come to pass.

I don't suspect that it will come to pass (Democrats aren't exactly famed for fiscal responsibility either.)

Erm, yes, in fact, they are in recent years. Look at the Clinton years.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Democrats weren't in control of congress then.

[besson3c]

I think the arguments about the Republicans being better at money do not take into account some important variables... Look at this stimulus package that is being introduced now. Middle class/poor friendly economic policies *do* benefit our economy as a whole, to some extent. I don't think there has ever been conclusive evidence that trickle down economic oriented policies actually work in actual practice. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm starting to think that the signs of our economy being handled well do not simply revolve around *what* the government spends money on, but how this money is managed. If your budget is unbalanced and you are spending more money than you are making, this is going to be bad regardless of whom your economic policies favor. If you want to make the argument that Republicans are better at keeping balanced budgets and spending under control, you'd have to completely disregard both Clinton and Bush.

To me, at the presidential level, the key distinctions are in the areas of economic philosophy. Obviously the president him/herself is not single-handedly responsible for budgeting. Regardless of your underlying economic philosophy, the government will only be as good as the people appointed to managing finances are, and only as good as Congress is at drafting spending bills. So, point being, perhaps the issue of Republican vs. Democrat president is somewhat moot?

[besson3c]

Continuing with my line of thinking, it seems that Bush's greatest mistake was not surrounding himself with the best of the best, but with his buddies. Look at all of the bumbling that has gone on around him:

- "Heck of a Job" Brown
- Rumsfeld
- Whomever is in charge of education and came up with No Child Left Behind
- John Ashcroft
- The attempted appointment of that female supreme court judge (can't remember her name)

It has been said that past presidents surrounded themselves with the very best, regardless of their political affiliation. Some even made it a point to appoint people who had a different set of beliefs just to keep themselves in check. I don't see much evidence that the same could be said for Bush, who seems to value loyalty above anything else.

Ergo, like I said, when you surround yourself with poor leadership, you are going to get poor results regardless of the underlying philosophies.

[vmarks]

Sure, and if you want to start a thread on fiscal responsibility and how it may break down along party lines, go for it.

This is about Bush's use of a veto threat to try and leave a legacy.

[Spliffdaddy]

Bush hasn't spent a dime of our tax dollars. He isn't allowed to.

Blame Congress. That's who spends 100% of our federal tax dollars.

[vmarks]

Everyday folks don't remember a Congress when they go to blame someone, rightly or wrongly.

No one sits around and says, "you know, the 109th Congress really did us wrong. It's going to be hard to turn that around."

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Bush hasn't spent a dime of our tax dollars. He isn't allowed to.

Blame Congress. That's who spends 100% of our federal tax dollars.

That's not true. He sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Those movements (hehe) were paid for with tax dollars, were they not?

[besson3c]

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's not true. He sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Those movements (hehe) were paid for with tax dollars, were they not?

Everything is paid for with tax dollars. And every tax dollar that's spent is approved by congress. Congress did not have to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they did. And they continue to fund them. Bush is not able to spend a dime without the authority of Congress. In fact. Congress authorized the use of force before Bush sent the first soldier to Iraq.

Congress approved the use of force - and Congress continues to fund the operations.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Everything is paid for with tax dollars. And every tax dollar that's spent is approved by congress. Congress did not have to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they did. And they continue to fund them. Bush is not able to spend a dime without the authority of Congress. In fact. Congress authorized the use of force before Bush sent the first soldier to Iraq.

Congress approved the use of force - and Congress continues to fund the operations.

So what you're saying is that Bush bears no responsibility whatsoever for the costs we have incurred due to the wars in Afganistan and Iraq? Nor for the costs incurred by the creation of the DHS?

Yes, Congress had to approve these costs, but they wouldn't have even had the option to do so if it weren't for Bush. He shares in the responsibility for these things and therefore shares in the responsibility for spending those tax dollars.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd like to give him all the credit for killing as many Islamofascists as possible - but, admittedly, most of the credit goes to Congress for approving and funding those operations. Without congress, the President can only veto things and talk about what he'd like to do.

.

[tie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That doesn't stop him from trying to build one. We're not talking about what his legacy will be - we're talking about why he's made this declaration. It's his attempt to build his legacy.

That doesn't make any sense. He knows, just as everyone in this forum knows and you seem to agree ("We're not talking about what his legacy will be"), that this won't affect his legacy. So why are you arguing that he's doing it to build his legacy? He's doing it to build up for a fight against the Democrats and to help the Republicans. It will have no long-term impact.

He claims his plan will lead to a balanced budget in 2012. His plan, and by extension he, would be responsible for such a thing if it were to come to pass.

His budget also says that we'll leave Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. It says that we'll spend only $70 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, even though he has requested almost $200 billion. Do you really think he's being serious?

It also says that the economy will grow faster this year than any economists are predicting. Bush officials are now privately forecasting a record $400+ billion budget deficit this year.

(Democrats aren't exactly famed for fiscal responsibility either.)

This has nothing to do with the Democrats' fiscal responsibility.

But that doesn't change the fact that he's trying to establish his legacy.

Yes it does. He doesn't believe in his budget promises any more than the rest of us do, and I think the war spending cutoff in 2009 proves this. (If you can find a quote by Bush saying that we'll be completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2009, then you might have an argument. Good luck.)

[vmarks]

Just because we're not talking about what his legacy will be, does not mean that this may not affect it.

Think back to Theodore Roosevelt. No one thinks of his legacy as the Spanish-American war, his posting of troops in the Far East, or the Panama Canal, even though these things are certainly his - instead, we think today of him as an environmentalist, associated with National Parks and teddy bears.

Legacies are a funny thing, and can be hard to predict accurately.

Had Clinton actually succeeded with the Camp David talks in 2000 and gotten Arafat and Abbas to agree to something and enact it, peace in the middle east would have been Clinton's legacy. It failed, so it hasn't really affected his legacy.

If this measure by Bush is successful (that is, if he actually follows through, and vetoes anything with an undue amount of earmarks on it) then he could become known for reducing earmarks and wasteful spending.

But we don't know that. We cannot accurately predict what his legacy will become, which is why I said we aren't talking about it - we're talking about the political expediency of doing something like this so late in his term as President.

[tie]

He will not become known for reducing earmarks and wasteful spending because he greatly increased it when the Republicans were in control of Congress. If he cuts it back, then it will just have returned to the status quo. This is good, but it isn't good enough to be remembered as part of a legacy. To be part of his legacy, it has to have continuing impact, and this will not have continuing impact because legislative mechanisms aren't being reformed.

I guess you are conceding that even Bush himself does not believe that his plan will lead to a balanced budget in 2012? "He claims his plan will lead to a balanced budget in 2012. His plan, and by extension he, would be responsible for such a thing if it were to come to pass."

I don't agree with your characterization of Teddy Roosevelt's legacy. I think you may be right, that legacy isn't always easy to predict---but I think in many (most?) cases it is easy to predict. I need some better examples anyway.

Right now, the central parts of Bush's legacy are the Iraq war, which he entered into by mistake, and the 9/11 terrorist attack. (Katrina will be forgotten since nobody really cares about poor people. Some other things may or may not be remembered, depending on how they turn out and on the election.) Bush knows that his biggest legacy is Iraq and this is what he wants to focus on. But his alleged goal of achieving a balanced budget is in direct conflict which Iraq. In particular, according to his budget plan, we'd have to leave Iraq next year. Now really, which part of Bush's potential legacy do you think he'll give up on first? Given that his record over the last seven years has been only to increase government spending, turning surpluses into record deficits, don't you have to conclude that fiscal responsibility is a secondary legacy priority to Iraq? Even on fiscal policy, Bush's top priority is making permanent his tax cuts for the rich---that is something that he has consistently been interested in from the very beginning and could definitely be part of his legacy.

[vmarks]

I'm not conceding that Bush doesn't think it's possible - I'm not in the man's head. Not even Rove is, anymore.

The balanced budget portion is up to Congress to follow through on. If, according to the budget, America has to leave Iraq next year -- well, that falls on the next President and Congress to decide. So, it would be easy to say it was the next President and Congress that blew it if they keep America in country. For me, if that's the case, I don't think this helps his legacy building efforts - history doesn't do a lot of remembering that which might have almost happened (balanced budget).

Can he reduce earmarks? If Congress puts through a bill with earmarks in it, Bush can choose to exercise his veto.

Will that be a part of his legacy? No idea. Is it legacy building? Yes.

[tie]

So your argument is that if the next president orders all the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 (and somehow pulls out of thin air $130 billion that Bush will ask for in 2008 outside of the budget as emergency spending), entirely contrary to Bush's stated policy-- then you'll give Bush credit for balancing the budget?

And otherwise you'll blame Congress?

Sorry, this is illogical. Already in 2008, Bush is planning to go $130 billion over the budget plan for emergency spending, and perhaps another $150 billion for the stimulus package. How can you say that the budget "plan" is part of his legacy when he has already broken it?

I'm not conceding that Bush doesn't think it's possible - I'm not in the man's head.

You don't have to be in his head. Just find me one statement where he has said that all our troops will be out of Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of 2009. Then find me another statement where he says that he will not ask for more than $70 billion for A./I. operations for 2008. You need to find some statements that justify that the budget "plan" is actually a serious plan, because right now there are none.

Actually, I am using administration sources quoted anonymously in NY Times articles, so you can do the same thing.

[vmarks]

You're hung up on this intended balanced budget by 2012 statement.

Has Bush asked for the emergency spending package? You say "is planning to" as if he hasn't done it yet.

When he does, then he's broken it. Until he does, he hasn't yet. Of course, today is Sunday.

You're hung up in the details instead of the overall intent - which is to try and build a legacy. Obviously, no one will remember this statement, just as few people remember his statement about tort reform in the State of the Union address a few years ago, if it doesn't come to pass, and he blows it right away.

But what of the earmarks bit? Could he establish a legacy for his Presidency if he follows through on that promise?

[tie]

Everyone knows he will ask for emergency spending. Pretending otherwise is stupid. I don't really want to argue about a fantasy land where Bush cuts funding for our troops in Iraq by $130 billion. You seem to be trying to emulate Rumsfeld's willful ignorance.

About the earmarks bit, I'd have to say that there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

See, two can play at this game. Seriously, I've said my point on earmarks. Bush has already established his legacy on earmarks---he likes them. Claiming in a speech that he doesn't like earmarks doesn't do anything for his legacy, especially when it is too late to stand behind that statement with meaningful actions. The only spending bills he is going to get are the emergency funding bills that you imagine won't even happen.

I was hung up on the budget because that is the larger issue that is big enough to create a memorable legacy. And with your Rumsfeldian denials, I think you have conceded that Bush has no positive legacy on the budget.

[vmarks]

Earmarks are attached to all kinds of things, not just spending bills. Pretending it's only spending bills, and those are the only bills he'll ever see is a bit hard for me to explain.

I think Bush will have no legacy on the budget only because in any turn of events we can imagine, it's not going to come to fruition.

He may establish a legacy on earmarks other than you imagine.

Lastly, thank you for comparing me to Donald Rumsfeld. It's a compliment, and I take it as such. Unfortunately for me, I'm nowhere near as good as he is with his sharp wit.

[tie]

Rumsfeld is a fool and a liar. But he does have a sharp wit---so I'm glad you took it as a compliment.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Apparently last year in Bush's State of the Union he said that he wants to cut federal earmarks (i.e. pork barrel pet projects) in half. Lo and behold, in the following year a spending bill was approved with only 11,000 earmarks!

Where did you get this number anyway? The Democrats are saying that the earmarks were cut but 48% in dollar terms (according to Pelosi's letter to the editor in yesterday's SF Chronicle). I don't want to take her word for it, though, since it could be that she is using too strict a definition. In wikipedia, it says:

Despite ongoing controversy over their use, Congress' year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains almost 9,000 earmarks. 2,658 of them representing $13.2 billion have been identified as "Pork Projects" by Citizens Against Government Waste, significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years: 13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963 projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006.

[tie]

And now it turns out that Bush has included his own earmarks in his budget. Who would have thought? (How could we possibly have imagined? vmarks, if you take Rumsfeld as your hero, you are apt to be wrong just as Rumsfeld was.)

link

From Bush, Foe of Earmarks, Similar Items
...
Thus, for example, the president requested $330 million to deal with plant pests like the emerald ash borer, the light brown apple moth and the sirex woodwasp. He sought $800,000 for the Neosho National Fish Hatchery in Missouri and $1.5 million for a waterway named in honor of former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat.

At the same time, Mr. Bush requested $894,000 for an air traffic control tower in Kalamazoo, Mich.; $12 million for a parachute repair shop at the American air base in Aviano, Italy; and $6.5 million for research in Wyoming on the “fundamental properties of asphalt.”

He sought $3 million for a forest conservation project in Minnesota, $2.1 million for a neutrino detector at the South Pole and $28 million for General Electric and Siemens to do research on hydrogen-fuel turbines.
...
It is virtually impossible to determine the dollar value of items requested by the president because they are scattered through voluminous budget documents prepared by dozens of federal offices and agencies, and the administration does not publish comprehensive lists, as Congress did last year for the first time.

Administration officials say that many projects in the president’s budget — though they may look like Congressional earmarks — were evaluated as part of a coherent program to address some national need, like pest eradication or flood control.

Mr. Bush’s budget says, for example, that the Army Corps of Engineers uses “performance-based guidelines” to set priorities for navigation and flood control projects, ensuring that benefits will outweigh costs.

But the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, found that the corps’s studies of proposed projects were “fraught with errors, mistakes and miscalculations” that tended to overstate the benefits and understate the costs.