Candidate Obama was very clear about his position on earmarking…
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
So President Obama did the following when he took office in 2009…
The president signed the $410 billion spending bill, which contains roughly 9,000 earmarks totaling nearly $8 billion, behind closed doors and away from the glare of the cameras. But before he did, he came before myriad cameras to insist he viewed the bill “as a departure point for more far-reaching change.”
Obama said lawmakers should post earmark requests on their Web sites and open them to public scrutiny at hearings; and subject earmarks for for-profit private companies to a competitive bidding process, just like other federal contracts. He pledged to work with congressional leaders to remove future earmarks that don’t serve any legitimate public purpose.
So now that President Obama has been here a year and can no longer say this is not “his” Omnibus bill, what will/did he do
“President Barack Obama signed a $447 billion omnibus spending bill into law Wednesday, assuring that federal agencies will be able to operate through the remainder of fiscal 2010,” …
According to Roll Call, “White House officials acknowledge that the legislation is not ‘perfect,’ as it raises spending and continues widespread earmarking, though the number of earmarks is down from last year.” They said Obama signed the measure to prevent an interruption of government operations, “and they promise that the president’s next budget will make a serious stab at reducing the deficit.”
People have implied I might not give President Obama credit for “anything” he does. If he controlled pork spending for both Democrats and Republicans then I would be the first to give him kudos.
to end earmarking. In this case, it appears Obama was not necessarily saying he would end the practice; but wanted to reform it and subject it to scrutiny. Moreover, I think there was a case to be made for earmarking in the Economic Stimulus bill, whose purpose was to get the economy moving again.
<
p>While earmarking might imply that projects are chosen for political reasons, it may be the only way to get enough projects going in a short enough time to stimulate major job creation and bring about other economic benefits.
And I can understand that “some” earmarks may have a good reason to be in the bill, bit not 5,224 earmarks. And what happened to reviewing them and putting them on the web for transparency?
<
p>His “promise of change” seems to be “changing his promises”!
Obama was wrong in the first place about earmarks. Many people, apparently including Obama himself, didn’t understand that there are good earmarks and there are bad earmarks. Lumping them all together as terrible blights on our democracy makes about as much sense as lumping all lobbyists together as “bad”.
…a President’s hands are tied when it comes to earmarks. They get put into legislation to sweeten the deal for a hesitant vote and if the President wants whatever it is the legislation is for he’s pretty much stuck with the earmarks. He can call out lawmakers for their tactics (though we’ve learned that Obama’s not one to ruffle feathers), but otherwise he can’t control the legislative process by virtue of separation of powers. Personally, I very much support a line-item veto, but SCOTUS has ruled that would require a constitutional amendment.
of his campaign promise is a good thing. Right?
<
p>A few weeks ago this site was ablaze about the remarks from Martha, Capuano… about how they would serve in the Senate. Are you all saying they can lie or say anything they want and then change their minds isnce we will all “simply forget” their promises? Wasn’t Obama going to change all that? Are you all seriously going to just give him a pass on
<
p>