Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, who threatened to kill thousands of lawmakers' pet projects, won't cancel any already passed and instead will crack down on the practice later this year, his spokeswoman said.

Bush decided against eliminating the projects, known as earmarks, that were approved last month by Congress because he didn't give lawmakers adequate warning, spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters in Washington today.

``The president decided that he needed to give the Congress a very clear indication of what he was going to do,'' she said. Bush will promise in tonight's State of the Union address to veto any spending bills for fiscal 2009 that don't cut such spending in half from last year's levels, said deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

The administration's decision disappointed anti-earmark activists who said the White House is passing up a chance to do something now to curtail earmarks in favor of a pledge that may amount to little.

``I'm disappointed the president missed this historic opportunity to stop thousands of wasteful earmarks,'' said Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican. ``This is a bipartisan earmark addiction, and the president should have taken the bottle away. Instead, he chose to accept another round of earmarks and give lawmakers another round of drinks.''

Reid Defends Practice

Congress approved more than 11,700 earmarks valued at a more than $19 billion for the fiscal 2008 spending year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Lawmakers like them because they bring money, jobs and often new programs and facilities to their home districts, pleasing voters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said lawmakers have an ``obligation'' to ``take care'' of their constituents and that eliminating earmarks would shift the power to make spending decisions to the executive branch.

``There is no reason to have some bureaucrat down over there with his green eyeshades and his funny little hat determining what happens to money that goes for road building in northern Nevada,'' Reid said today on a conference call with reporters. ``We have an obligation, and I will continue to exercise that.''

Many Worthwhile Projects

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, added: ``If the president wants to do away with earmarks, then we should do away with the presidential earmarks as well.''

Even critics agree many of the projects may be worthwhile, while objecting that they are slipped into legislation by individual lawmakers without begin vetted by the whole Congress.

DeMint said the White House's pledge to cut 2009 earmarks may not have much practical effect because lawmakers may delay passing spending bills that include them until Bush has left office.

Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, called the administration's decision a ``classic Washington dodge'' that pushes ``the heavy lifting off to your successor.

``The president is trying to appear like he is doing a lot when in fact he is doing little,'' said Ellis. ``Instead of leading by example and enforcing spending discipline on his watch, the president is telling his successor to do something he doesn't have the guts to do.''

Democrats cut spending on the projects last year, though estimates vary by how much because there is no commonly accepted definition of an earmark.

The administration has authority to cancel most of the projects Congress approved last year because they were included, as is the usual practice, in reports accompanying bills rather than in the text of the legislation. Bush can scrap the reports' directives because they are ``not laws and therefore are not legally binding on executive agencies,'' according to the Congressional Research Service.

To contact the reporter on this story: Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 28, 2008 17:29 EST