RedState has a post that jubilantly discusses Senate Dems blocking a Republican amendment to S.1, an ethics-reform bill, which would come close to granting the President a line-item veto on earmarked spending items in bills. (It’s not a true veto; just a requirement that Congress vote to reaffirm specific elements on items the President questions.)
While I can understand that Dems might have some discomfort with the idea of even temporarily granting the Presidency more power (a very uncomfortable idea, given the antics of the current administration), I’d have to agree that it seems like a worthy tool to reign in Congressional fiscal irresponsibility.
You have to wonder if RedState might not be correct in this observation:
The fact is that Democrats object to the Gregg amendment and the DeMint amendment because they aren’t really against earmarks. They only wanted to campaign on the issue, not actually do anything substantive about it. Now that they are in the majority, they want all the perks of office; and that includes easier access to taxpayer dollars for their constituencies and their re-election chances.