While the prez has fulminated against "earmarks," in his State of the Union address and elsewhere, the D.C. Examiner's Mark Tapscott thinks that Bush is going to let the whole earmarks "anonymous spending unrelated to a bill's ostensible purpose slipped in behind closed doors" thing ride when it comes to his Iraq supplemental bill.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- Breitbart on Libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- Did the Drug War Make it Any Easier for Whitney Houston to Seek Help For Substance Abuse? (2.12)
- The Inside and Outside of CPAC 2012 (2.10)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|3.21.07 @ 10:48AM|#
And this is noteworthy why?? Of course he'd allow anything as long as it, in some way or another, supports his war.
Guy Montag|3.25.07 @ 7:03AM|#
Looks like the writer's suspicions prooved false.