As congressmen fight to include appropriations for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the regular budget, today’s Battle Creek Enquirer came out in favor of limiting supplemental appropriations:

It is necessary for the federal government to have a certain amount of spending flexibility to meet emergency needs. But the supplemental process needs to be limited to costs that are unforeseen and absolutely necessary. If we continue to use supplemental allocations at a growing rate, the only thing sure to increase is the budgetary crisis faced by future generations of Americans.

The editorial pointed out three dangers of supplemental spending: waste, earmarks and excessive spending.

[S]upplemental budget requests often lack detail and sail through the approval process with little review by Congress. Such lack of accountability seldom results in efficient government spending.

The supplemental process also provides an easy way to slip in "earmarks," those fund allocations that only benefit a specific group or region. Earmarks are popular among congressional representatives seeking to gain favor back home, with little consideration of their total impact on the overall budget.

Another danger of supplemental appropriations are that they are not included under budget caps, which are legislative limits meant to curb government deficit spending.

Supplemental spending is one item covered by the budget reforms proposed in the S.O.S. legislation. BNA reports that “an unlikely alliance of anti-spending House GOP conservatives and moderates” is optimistic about budget reform.

"We've got to bank these wins and then we've got to focus on real spending caps that will precipitate entitlement reform," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on June 29, prior to lawmakers' July Fourth recess. In deciding which budget changes to fight for, Ryan said he and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) looked at the 2004 list. "From those ... we said, 'Let's bite off what we can chew this year' and came up with four," Ryan said.

Kirk, a leader of the moderate Tuesday Group, said there was "a surprising level of agreement" between the two groups on the need to control federal spending. "I think we need to recover the soul of the GOP as an anti-spending party," Kirk told BNA June 29.

But the reforms’ prospects are unclear, although spending reform will likely be a big issue for Republicans in the months ahead:

With only a few working months left in the congressional session, none of the lawmakers interviewed thought this year's proposals are certain to be enacted yet, and they were wary of stating what would be next on the agenda for incremental budget process reform in 2007.

Ryan said he would like to take another look at the Congressional Budget Act put in place in 1974 and effect "real spending caps." Kirk said if Republicans maintain control of the House, "I would see some pretty deep soul-searching" by the Republican conference ahead of the next congressional session on how to put anti-spending provisions in conference rules, at the committee level, and the House rules.

WHIO-TV supported Ryan’s efforts on the line-item veto and comparing his bill to the line-item veto used in Ohio:

At the statehouse in Columbus, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft has a line-item veto. It lets him reject any individual expenditure of taxpayer money that he feels is wrong or a waste of money.

Now, Congress is working on a similar plan for Washington. Under the plan, the president could veto any individual expenditure in a bill, and it would go back to Congress, which would override the veto with a simple majority vote.

Meanwhile, the investigation into the “Duke” Cunningham scandal continues. The AP’s Allison Hoffman reports that prosecutors are now focusing on defense contractor Brent Wilkes:

Cunningham was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes - including payments for a 7,628-square-foot mansion, a Rolls-Royce and a 65-foot yacht - in return for funneling contracts to certain companies.

Wilkes' lawyers have confirmed he is the unidentified "Co-Conspirator No. 1" in Cunningham's plea agreement. Prosecutors, who declined to comment on their investigation, allege he paid Cunningham more than $600,000 to win government contracts.

Wilkes’ story brings to light the kind of climate that surrounds earmarks and spending, and the expectations some lobbyists have of what they can achieve in Washington:

Wilkes advised Audre's CEO, Tom Casey, to begin targeting members of Congress, including Lewis, Cunningham and fellow San Diego-area U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The tactic helped net the company millions in government contracts.

"It was obvious that Washington was where our money was going to be," Casey said. "I was looking for an earmark for our technology, so I hired Wilkes to work on it full-time."

Rep. Jeff Flake is kicking his anti-earmark effort up a notch as he plans to challenge every earmark without a sponsor’s name attached:

The House passed a lobbying reform bill in May that required that the sponsors of earmarks be identified,’ said Flake. ‘There’s no good reason why that policy hasn’t been implemented.’

No good reason, indeed. Another excellent example of the backbone so sorely lacking on the Leviathan of spending that has nearly consumed the Republican majority.