spending bill

[luke warm]

president obama signed the bill today in spite of the earmarks... at least he was so distressed by it that he signed it in private

[PassedOut]

Yes, Obama has a government to run and has to prioritize the cleanup of the many messes he inherited. If he focused too much energy on the trivial 1% rather than the 99%, his opponents would be right to object. (And we can be sure they would.) Obama Signs Spending Bill as He Criticizes Earmarks

 

Mr. Obama’s aides said privately that they did not want a confrontation with Congress over the earmarks at a time when the president needs cooperation on an array of priorities that are more important to him.

 

Republicans mocked him for hiding his action. “Pardon us if we note the irony of signing a bill into law that contains close to 9,000 earmarks on the very day that the president pushes alleged earmark reform,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader. “It’s like washing down a doughnut with a Slim-Fast shake.”

 

Mr. Obama returned fire at Republicans by implying hypocrisy on their part since they too have earmarks in the bill. “I also find it ironic that some of those who railed the loudest against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own — and will tout them in their own states and districts,” Mr. Obama said.

If the earmark situation has not improved before Obama's four years are up, he'll deserve criticism.

[luke warm]

you know, this "inherited mess" thing is gonna lose legs one of these days... regardless of the degree to which it might be true, cutting out some of these earmarks would have been a good start

[PassedOut]

you know, this "inherited mess" thing is gonna lose legs one of these days... regardless of the degree to which it might be true, cutting out some of these earmarks would have been a good start

As I recall, the Bush administration blamed Clinton for pretty much everything that went wrong for his first four years and longer.

 

But I agree that after the recession and Iraq war are fixed, Obama should be held responsible for what else goes wrong even though he inherited many other problems, including the huge Bush deficits and the recent explosion of earmarks. No doubt that is why Obama is tackling several immense problems at once.

 

Obama did explain what he plans to do about future earmarks, and his explanation was a reasonable one in my opinion.

 

I'm sure that most voters realize that if he had refused to sign last year's spending bill, his opponents would have run ads wherever earmarks had been eliminated saying stuff like:

 

"Obama says he supports jobs, but he cut 14 construction jobs right here in River City by pulling the earmark for the additional airport runway we were counting on."

[jdonn]

you know, this "inherited mess" thing is gonna lose legs one of these days... regardless of the degree to which it might be true, cutting out some of these earmarks would have been a good start

As I recall, the Bush administration blamed Clinton for pretty much everything that went wrong for his first four years and longer.

Clinton? Most conservative friends I have still blame Jimmy Carter for everything wrong in their lives.

 

But I think regarding Bush it's still true now, and I also agree it will lose legs one of these days. The day will be, once it's no longer true.

 

I'm sure that most voters realize that if he had refused to sign last year's spending bill, his opponents would have run ads wherever earmarks had been eliminated saying stuff like:

 

"Obama says he supports jobs, but he cut 14 construction jobs right here in River City by pulling the earmark for the additional airport runway we were counting on."

Surely true, but I doubt they would call it an earmark in the ad.

[barmar]

While the funding for the airport runway was removed from the spending bill, maybe they can apply for funding for it from the stimulus package? If it doesn't get approved there, those 14 construction workers will not get the jobs, but presumably 14 (or more) OTHER construction workers will get jobs from the projects that are approved in its place.

 

There's only so much federal money to go around. If something gets cut, it's because someone decided that the money was more needed somewhere else.

[luke warm]

ok then, you've both conviced me.. the 9000 or so earmarks had to stay in, there were none that should have come out

[jdonn]

ok then, you've both conviced me.. the 9000 or so earmarks had to stay in, there were none that should have come out

And you have convinced me that if there was at least 1 earmark for at least 1 dollar that should be removed, Obama shouldn't have signed the bill.

[barmar]

At some point you have to stop playing politics and just pass something, even if it's not perfect. The alternative is a logjam.

[hrothgar]

ok then, you've both conviced me.. the 9000 or so earmarks had to stay in, there were none that should have come out

Try this on for size, you stupid little git:

 

NO ONE has claimed that the omnibus spending bill is perfect. President Obama specifically stated that he believes that there are wasteful earmarks included in the bill.

 

However, he also noted that there are very real costs associated with removing earmarks. The most notable cost, being the length of time necessary to push the spending bill through congress.

 

Obama believes that the costs associated with delaying the passage of the bill are much more severe than the benefits associate with rooting out the waste associated with the bill.

 

If you look at the specifics of Obama's speech, you'll see that he is focusing on developing an open and accountable process for future earmark spending. Yes, there will be a short term hit. But (hopefully) we'll be better positioned to avoid this type of bullshit during future spending cycles.

 

I recognize that you are more comfortable with ideas that can be expressed on bumper stickers. ("No New Taxes" "Better Dead that RED" "USA: Love it or Leave IT", "Jesus Loves Me (but he can't stand you)".

 

Hopefully, this hasn't been too much of a strain for you.

[Lobowolf]

However, he also noted that there are very real costs associated with removing earmarks.  The most notable cost, being the length of time necessary to push the spending bill through congress.

 

Obama believes that the costs associated with delaying the passage of the bill are much more severe than the benefits associate with rooting out the waste associated with the bill.

 

If you look at the specifics of Obama's speech, you'll see that he is focusing on developing an open and accountable process for future earmark spending.  Yes, there will be a short term hit.  But (hopefully) we'll be better positioned to avoid this type of bullshit during future spending cycles.

I didn't hear any specifics about reducing in the future. "Focusing on developing an open and accountable process" is about as close to a pure generality as you can get. There's an inherent tension between getting spending bills passed expeditiously and the my-district-first mentality of individual congressmembers who are elected to represent the interests of their own electors. That's not Obama's fault; it's part of the system. But I see no indication that it will be any different in the future, other than some typically eloquent phrase-turns. "Open and accountable"? ok. I'm the Rep from the 179th district of West NewEastville - they elected me to boost the widget industry, I only answer to them, and unless we get money for the development of new widget technology, I'm voting no. What are you going to do about it? Ultimately, as president, it's delay the implementation or cave. "Stop or I'll say stop again" isn't going to change that. I'm not saying he's doing something wrong, or that he should or could do anything differently; I'm saying that it's a tremendous act of faith to think that things are going to be different next year. Or the following year.

 

"Open and accountable process" fits on a bumper sticker, too. Just like "Hope and change."

[hrothgar]

However, he also noted that there are very real costs associated with removing earmarks.  The most notable cost, being the length of time necessary to push the spending bill through congress.

 

Obama believes that the costs associated with delaying the passage of the bill are much more severe than the benefits associate with rooting out the waste associated with the bill.

 

If you look at the specifics of Obama's speech, you'll see that he is focusing on developing an open and accountable process for future earmark spending.  Yes, there will be a short term hit.  But (hopefully) we'll be better positioned to avoid this type of bullshit during future spending cycles.

I didn't hear any specifics about reducing in the future. "Focusing on developing an open and accountable process" is about as close to a pure generality as you can get. There's an inherent tension between getting spending bills passed expeditiously and the my-district-first mentality of individual congressmembers who are elected to represent the interests of their own electors. That's not Obama's fault; it's part of the system. But I see no indication that it will be any different in the future, other than some typically eloquent phrase-turns. "Open and accountable"? ok. I'm the Rep from the 179th district of West NewEastville - they elected me to boost the widget industry, I only answer to them, and unless we get money for the development of new widget technology, I'm voting no. What are you going to do about it? Ultimately, as president, it's delay the implementation or cave. "Stop or I'll say stop again" isn't going to change that. I'm not saying he's doing something wrong, or that he should or could do anything differently; I'm saying that it's a tremendous act of faith to think that things are going to be different next year. Or the following year.

 

"Open and accountable process" fits on a bumper sticker, too. Just like "Hope and change."

The following is taken from

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/11/oba...arks/index.html

 

In my opinion these are examples of what might go into a plan rather than plan: I agree that some of these statements - particularly the last sentence - are quite vague. I am looking forward to seeing a more detailed description.

 

Earmarks sought by members of Congress, he said in an appearance at the White House, should be aired on those lawmakers' Web sites in advance "so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merit for themselves."

 

Each earmark, he added, also should "be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer."

 

The president also said that any earmark benefiting a for-profit private company "should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts."

 

"The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice," he said.

 

"Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools, police stations, fire departments -- and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then they should be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny."

 

Obama added that earmarks should "never, ever be traded for political favors."

 

The president pledged to seek to eliminate any future earmark that has "no legitimate public purpose."

[luke warm]

ok then, you've both conviced me.. the 9000 or so earmarks had to stay in, there were none that should have come out

Try this on for size, you stupid little git:

 

NO ONE has claimed that the omnibus spending bill is perfect. President Obama specifically stated that he believes that there are wasteful earmarks included in the bill.

 

However, he also noted that there are very real costs associated with removing earmarks. The most notable cost, being the length of time necessary to push the spending bill through congress.

 

Obama believes that the costs associated with delaying the passage of the bill are much more severe than the benefits associate with rooting out the waste associated with the bill.

 

If you look at the specifics of Obama's speech, you'll see that he is focusing on developing an open and accountable process for future earmark spending. Yes, there will be a short term hit. But (hopefully) we'll be better positioned to avoid this type of bullshit during future spending cycles.

 

I recognize that you are more comfortable with ideas that can be expressed on bumper stickers. ("No New Taxes" "Better Dead that RED" "USA: Love it or Leave IT", "Jesus Loves Me (but he can't stand you)".

 

Hopefully, this hasn't been too much of a strain for you.

why no, thanks, you put it simply enough that even i could understand it... you know, richard, being a liberal doesn't make you smarter - or even right... you arrogant little dick

[Phil]

I find it curious that this was a dilemma Paulsen was taking in October / November. Pass something, ANYTHING, but do something, even if it isn't / wasn't perfect.

 

I also find it interesting that several months ago the dems were parading around "main street, not wall street", when in fact no one had a real clue how to solve the problem, because of the breadth and complexity of it. Now, its questionable earmarks that are required to pass a bill that no one has any real clue what the eventual effect will be and the cons are screaming.

 

Personally, I hate the fact that legislators need to be 'bribed' with pork in order to pass something like this. It just goes to show how effing sick the system is.

 

Richard, don't call Jimmy names, even something hip and new age. Please.

 

No need to be an jerk (you deserve worse) on the forums, even though I know you detest his politics.

[barmar]

The earmarks only accounted for 2% of the spending bill. So if they went back to committee and managed to negotiate away 1/4 of the earmarks, it would only be half a percent.

 

On the other hand, that's $2 billion, which is nothing to sneeze at. But getting rid of over 2,000 earmarks would be an incredible, probably totally unrealistic goal. And how long would it take?

[luke warm]

you know, this "inherited mess" thing is gonna lose legs one of these days... regardless of the degree to which it might be true, cutting out some of these earmarks would have been a good start

As I recall, the Bush administration blamed Clinton for pretty much everything that went wrong for his first four years and longer.

yet another pee wee herman defense... i know you are but what am i

But I agree that after the recession and Iraq war are fixed, Obama should be held responsible for what else goes wrong even though he inherited many other problems, including the huge Bush deficits and the recent explosion of earmarks. No doubt that is why Obama is tackling several immense problems at once.

it looks like it's all but fixed

 

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery."

[hrothgar]

you know, this "inherited mess" thing is gonna lose legs one of these days... regardless of the degree to which it might be true, cutting out some of these earmarks would have been a good start

As I recall, the Bush administration blamed Clinton for pretty much everything that went wrong for his first four years and longer.

yet another pee wee herman defense... i know you are but what am i

Who can forget the horrible legacy of the Clinton years...

 

Does anyone else recall all those explanations about the destabilizing nature of sustained budget surplus and the requirement that we slash taxes to avoid this terrible fate?

 

Don't forget all those damn companies cluttering up the exchanges with their stock symbols. Life's a lot better now that Lehman Bros, Bear Stearn, Circuit City, the Chicago Tribune are all gone. With a bit of luck, we'll soon be rid of GM, Ford, AIG, Sears, and bunch of other wastrels...

 

Remember how horrible peace was? The Bushies had to go off and try to invent a war with China before they lucked on 9/11....

 

And it was just so shitty traveling outside the US back in the days before rendition and torture. None of the damn foreigners showed us any respect....

[luke warm]

i don't know why that's aimed at me, i voted for clinton and i agree he did a good job

[hrothgar]

i don't know why that's aimed at me, i voted for clinton and i agree he did a good job

I am simply noting that the situation that Obama inherited is manifestly different from what any president has had to deal with in recent memory.

 

I think that you might need to go back to 1860 to find a situation that was this screwed up...

 

It seems that Obama - unlike say George Bush - is in a pretty good position to claim that there were some issues when he came to to office

[jdonn]

you know, this "inherited mess" thing is gonna lose legs one of these days... regardless of the degree to which it might be true, cutting out some of these earmarks would have been a good start

As I recall, the Bush administration blamed Clinton for pretty much everything that went wrong for his first four years and longer.

yet another pee wee herman defense... i know you are but what am i

Well do you deny he inherited the mess? Do you think it doesn't matter? Pointing out that Bush did it for a lot longer than Obama has so far done it and for a much smaller mess is really the only defense that is provable. Anything else, obvious as it seems to me, I suspect would be denied by you...

 

Of course when you make comments like that so soon after "ok then, you've both conviced me.. the 9000 or so earmarks had to stay in, there were none that should have come out", then we find out why you're really here anyway.

[luke warm]

it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?

[jdonn]

it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?

Tell me how he could have done that. Read Barmar's post, except I would go even farther. It would have been incredibly difficult and highly ineffective, and also used against him to boot. And meanwhile there would still have been an underfunded government to run with no money allocated to do so.

 

As for my potential hypocrisy, I agree. If in a similar type of bill even next year there are 9,000 earmarks totalling over 4 billion dollars, Obama will have some serious explaining to do.

[hrothgar]

it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?

Funny, I was listening to the speech that Obama made when he signed the Omnibus spending bill. I don't recall him saying anything of the sort.

 

Please note: There are certainly some comments about earmarks in previous budgets. However, the point of those comments was not to excuse the fact that Obama was signing a bill that contained earmarks. Rather, Obama specifically noted that members of the Democratic Party were the ones who took the initiative to reform an earmark process that had become incredibly abusive under Republic congresses.

 

The reference point is the behavior of the different parties on congress...

Not the the actions taken by the Chief Executive

 

I guess that this is another case when you're making ***** up.

 

Tell you what: If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:

 

"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...

 

I'll even make it easy for you. Here's Obama's speech when he signed the bill...

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I ran for President pledging to change the way business is done in Washington and build a government that works for the people by opening it up to the people. And that means restoring responsibility and transparency and accountability to actions that the government takes. And working with the Congress over my first 50 days in office, we've made important progress toward that end.

 

Working together, we passed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that's already putting people back to work doing the work that America needs done. We did it without the customary Congressional earmarks -- the practice by which individual legislators insert projects of their choosing. We're implementing the Recovery Act with an unprecedented level of aggressive oversight and transparency, including a website -- recovery.gov -- that allows every American to see how their tax dollars are spent and report on cases where the system is breaking down.

 

I also signed a directive that dramatically reforms our broken system of government contracting, reining in waste and abuse and inefficiency; saving the American taxpayers up to $40 billion each year in the process.

 

And I've laid out plans for a budget that begins to restore fiscal discipline so we can bring down the $1.3 trillion budget deficit we've inherited and pave the way for our long-term prosperity. For the first time in many years, we've produced an honest budget that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.

 

Now, yesterday Congress sent me the final part of last year's budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one, a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities.

 

That's what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does -- the nearly 99 percent that you probably haven't heard much about.

 

What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks. Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own -- and will tout them in their own states and their own districts.

 

But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority. So these practices hit their peak in the middle of this decade, when the number of earmarks had ballooned to more than 16,000, and played a part in a series of corruption cases.

 

In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent. These measures were combined with the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate. We banned gifts and meals and made sure that lobbyists have to disclose who they're raising campaign money from, and who in Congress they send it to. So we've made progress. But let's face it, we have to do more.

 

I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.

 

In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.

 

These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.

 

Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools, and police stations, and fire departments.

 

When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.

 

Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.

 

And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so.

 

Now I know there are members in both Houses with good ideas on this matter. And just this morning, the House released a set of recommendations for reform that I think hold great promise. I congratulate them on that.

 

Now I'm calling on Congress to enact these reforms as the appropriation process moves forward this year. Neither I nor the American people will accept anything less.

 

It's important that we get this done to ensure that the budget process works better, that taxpayers are protected, and that we save billions of dollars that we so desperately need to right our economy and address our fiscal crisis. Along with that reform, I expect future spending bills to be debated and voted on in an orderly way, and sent to my desk without delay or obstruction, so that we don't face another massive, last-minute omnibus bill like this one.

 

I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse. As a former senator, I believe that individual members of Congress understand their districts best. And they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities. I don't quarrel with that. But leadership requires setting an example and setting priorities, and the magnitude of the economic crisis we face requires responsibility on all our parts.

 

The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.

 

If we're going to solve our economic crisis; if we're going to put Americans back to work; if we're going to make the investments required to build a foundation for our future growth -- then we must restore the American people's faith that their government is working for them, and that it's on their side. That's the government I promised. That's the government I intend to lead.

 

Thank you very much, everybody.

[luke warm]

it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?

Funny, I was listening to the speech that Obama made when he signed the Omnibus spending bill. I don't recall him saying anything of the sort.

 

Please note: There are certainly some comments about earmarks in previous budgets. However, the point of those comments was not to excuse the fact that Obama was signing a bill that contained earmarks. Rather, Obama specifically noted that members of the Democratic Party were the ones who took the initiative to reform an earmark process that had become incredibly abusive under Republic congresses.

whatever your opinion of the point of those comments might be, he did make them - and why would he do so unless he felt the signing of the bill needed defending?... no objective person can seriously believe that the democratic congress ".. took the initiative to reform an earmark process that had become incredibly abusive under Republic congresses .." when the earmarks in this bill were so incredibly huge and transparent...

Tell you what:  If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:

 

"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month.  Hell, I'll make it two...

what does this mean?

 

“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

 

what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?

[mike777]

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less. I know every tiny little town around where I live have hired Washington Lobbyists to get more money, not less.

 

The good news is it is only early March and Congress can pass more. I do not think it is fair to blame the new President for these bills. He has not even been in office a 100days yet. Lets give the guy a break.