Obama to blame for earmarks in spending bill?

[Cilogy]

Is Obama somehow to blame for the earmarks in the new $410 billion spending bill?

In this CNN article:
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Orszag on spending bill: ‘Is it uglier than we’d like? Absolutely.’ « - Blogs from CNN.com

Peter Orszag said "this [spending bill] was negotiated before we came into office and we don't think it's possible to step in and dramatically change it."

Since the bill was negotiate before Obama became President, Orszag said
"Would we have written this thing differently? Absolutely. But we face a basic choice here, which is this was negotiated last fall. It's been baked in….is it uglier than we'd like? Yes. But again, this was negotiated last year. We think we should just move on. When we are engaged in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process, it's going to look a lot different."


In this article:

Media Matters - AP ignored Democrats' response to earmark criticism: 40% are from Republicans

According to several sources, including the Taxpayers for Common Sense, 60% of the earmarks in the bill are from Democrats and 40% are from Republicans.


So I just want to see how many people actually think Obama is somehow involved in the earmarks of this new spending bill.

 

[DeeJayH]

why, is ~8000 earmarks any big deal

 

[DeeJayH]

now he may not be responsible for them being put in, but he sure as hell can veto it until they are removed :shrug:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

yes, he did not veto it. He broke another campaign promise.

 

[Lerxst]

No, Obama is not responsible for the earmarks. Congress is responsible for the earmarks. Republican and Democrat alike. That anyone thinks there would be any real change regarding earmarks is simply wishful thinking.

Earmarks are political capital back in the member's home district as well as on the belt way. Republicans love earmarks as much as Democrats do. Earmarks mean campaign contributions and votes.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Another thing, republicans should not be let off easy, I think something like 40% of the earmarks were from them. Shame on them as well.

 

[Cilogy]

now he may not be responsible for them being put in, but he sure as hell can veto it until they are removed :shrug:

I agree, he could veto them. However, I don't know how important the bill is to Reps and Dems.

He could face some MAJOR opposition, maybe even more than the opposition he had during the passing of the $787 billion stimulus.

I somewhat agree with Peter Orszag, the Congress already negotiated last year, so Obama shouldn't unnecessarily poke his finger in it to cause trouble, but that's the unfortunate position he's been put in.

 

[Lerxst]

yes, he did not veto it. He broke another campaign promise.

Obama didn't put earmarks in the bill. Senators and Representatives did that. Republican and Democrat alike.

Your logic is misguided. The final spending bill has not been sent to him for approval or veto yet, it's not cleared the Senate. You might want to check that out.

 

[Cilogy]

yes, he did not veto it. He broke another campaign promise.

The argument from Reps and Dems alike is the fact that they need the bill to "survive" for the next year or so.

If he vetoed the bill, it could cause unnecessary trouble.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Obama didn't put earmarks in the bill. Senators and Representatives did that. Republican and Democrat alike.

Your logic is misguided. The bill has not been sent to him for approval or veto yet, it's not cleared the Senate. You might want to check that out.

Do you have any indicators that he will veto it? He is fear mongering for it's passage.


He lies and says it has no earmarks,.


YouTube - Obama #1: This bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for its size



Please to explain.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The argument from Reps and Dems alike is the fact that they need the bill to "survive" for the next year or so.

If he vetoed the bill, it could cause unnecessary trouble.

Fear mongering.


SOmetime you need to let the market correct itself, not use it for earmarks and pet projects.

 

[Lerxst]

Do you have any indicators that he will veto it? He is fear mongering for it's passage.


He lies and says it has no earmarks,.


YouTube - Obama #1: This bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for its size



Please to explain.

We're not talking about the Stimulus Package which was certainly earmarked for all intents and purposes. We are talking about the FY2009 Omnibus spending bill.

 

[Cilogy]

Do you have any indicators that he will veto it? He is fear mongering for it's passage.


He lies and says it has no earmarks,.


YouTube - Obama #1: This bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for its size



Please to explain.

I thought I made it clear, but somehow you misunderstood.

This is NOT about the stimulus bill, its about the $410 billion bill that was introduced months before Obama's inauguration.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

We're not talking about the Stimulus Package which was certainly earmarked for all intents and purposes. We are talking about the FY2009 Omnibus spending bill.

Again, he said he would not sign a bill with earmarks, here we have 8000+ earmarks.


Reckless spending with no end in sight.



Obama lied, the economy died..... :lamo

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I thought I made it clear, but somehow you misunderstood.

This is NOT about the stimulus bill, its about the $410 billion bill that was introduced months before Obama's inauguration.

My bad..... But still, its pork, it's spending, obama promised to cut wasteful spending and pork, and there is no indication he will veto this idiocy of a spending bill.


Like Fred Thompson said, Its like telling a fat guy that the way to get skinny is to eat more donuts....


Makes little sense.

 

[Cilogy]

Again, he said he would not sign a bill with earmarks, here we have 8000+ earmarks.


Reckless spending with no end in sight.



Obama lied, the economy died..... :lamo

Yeah I guess he breaks the promise, but its not his bill.

 

[Lerxst]

Again, he said he would not sign a bill with earmarks, here we have 8000+ earmarks.


Reckless spending with no end in sight.



Obama lied, the economy died..... :lamo

Okay, I'll break this down again for you. I have no idea if you are actually reading our posts or not but I'll do this again.

We are talking about the FY2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, not the American Recovery Act (Stimulus Bill). Obama has not signed the Omnibus Bill because it has not left the Senate for his approval or veto.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yeah I guess he breaks the promise, but its not his bill.

I will concede, not his bill, however he is the one who will sign it or veto it.


The buck stops with him. Do you not agree?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Okay, I'll break this down again for you. I have no idea if you are actually reading our posts or not but I'll do this again.

We are talking about the FY2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, not the American Recovery Act (Stimulus Bill). Obama has not signed the Omnibus Bill because it has not left the Senate for his approval or veto.

I have clearly addressed the correct bill in a subsequent post and its correlations to obama's promises. Please try to keep up.


Do you think he will sign it? What about his campaign promise to end earmarks and pork spending?

Does the buck stop with him or not?



Please, I think you are capable of putting things in context and viewing the bigger picture here. Please do not prove me wrong.


Thanks.





:2wave:

 

[Lerxst]

I will concede, not his bill, however he is the one who will sign it or veto it.


The buck stops with him. Do you not agree?

Let's see what he does with FY2010. I bet he will sign that one and it will, like usual, be laden with pork.

Did Obama actually promise not to sign a spending bill with earmarks, or did he promise that he, as a Senator, would not requst any earmarks? There is a huge difference here.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Earmarks are like lobbyists. They are a valuable tool, but they are open to abuse and could definitely do with some reform. In public, though, they're a nice easy target so the problems get ridiculously inflated. It's true that Obama could veto the spending bill and thereby do something about earmarks, but that would be a horrible reason to veto such a bill.

 

[Lerxst]

I have clearly addressed the correct bill in a subsequent post and its correlations to obama's promises. Please try to keep up.

Look, you were obviously wrong and you even admitted it was your bad in your earlier post. I am not the one coming in here and failing to read the OP but running around making statements. I'm caught up.

Do you think he will sign it?

Yes, I know he will if he gets it.

What about his campaign promise to end earmarks and pork spending?

He made a promise to not submit earmarks as a Senator. Did he say that if he was elected he would not sign a spending bill with earmarks on it? I honestly don't know if he said that or not. Not all earmarks are pork. Would you like a lesson about pork barrel spending versus transparent and beneficial earmarks?

Does the buck stop with him or not?

Yes and no. He has a responsibility to ensure government continues to function. I'm want him to cut the pork but not arbitrarily kill very good programs that relay on earmarks for their continued existence. Primarily those in the public safety field.

I'm not so worried about his alleged promises and whether or not he keeps them. He's a politician. If he's talking he's probably lying. I'm worried about business getting done.

Please, I think you are capable of putting things in context and viewing the bigger picture here. Please do not prove me wrong.

Please don't try and run a game on me up here. I caught you, I pointed out your mistake, and you went on the attack. You can stop anytime.

 

[Lerxst]

Earmarks are like lobbyists. They are a valuable tool, but they are open to abuse and could definitely do with some reform. In public, though, they're a nice easy target so the problems get ridiculously inflated. It's true that Obama could veto the spending bill and thereby do something about earmarks, but that would be a horrible reason to veto such a bill.

Absolutely correct. Vetoing a $410 billion dollar spending bill because there are $8 billion in homestate earmarks, without judging the merit of the individual projects, is a stupid thing to do. You hamstring not only the federal, but state and local government as well. There are billions in very good projects in that bill that I personally know of that will go away if they don't get this thing done. There is also wasteful pork as well.

The problem is not Obama, the problem is that there is a way business gets done in Washington, and it is so pervasive, so powerful, that it is an institution unto itself. If anyone thinks a sitting President can overcome this they are simply fooling themselves. We live in a mixed capitalist society with a democratically elected government. As long as this is the case we will have politicians who are willing to operate within the system and maintain it. You do for me, I do for you. I vote for your amendment, you vote for mine. You donate to my campaign, I'll make sure an offer an amendment on the spending bill funding a project you'll benefit from.

That's how it works, that's how it's always worked, that is how it's going to continue for a long time to come.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

So Obama gets elected on "change" this was one of the "changes" he promised, Now he is going to sign a rediculous spending bill but "the problem is not Obama"....


At which point do you hold him accountable?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Look, you were obviously wrong and you even admitted it was your bad in your earlier post. I am not the one coming in here and failing to read the OP but running around making statements. I'm caught up.

oh boy here comes the little tantrum......


the relationship is obvious. you would rather complain. ok whatever.

Yes, I know he will if he gets it.

Thus breaking his campaign promise. how do you feel about that?

He made a promise to not submit earmarks as a Senator. Did he say that if he was elected he would not sign a spending bill with earmarks on it? I honestly don't know if he said that or not. Not all earmarks are pork. Would you like a lesson about pork barrel spending versus transparent and beneficial earmarks?

Really, so he never campaigned on ending earmarks in bills as a canidate? are you sure about that? either you are dishonest or ignorant of your man Obama...

Which is is lerxst?

Yes and no. He has a responsibility to ensure government continues to function. I'm want him to cut the pork but not arbitrarily kill very good programs that relay on earmarks for their continued existence. Primarily those in the public safety field.

Wait so are you contradicting your last paragraph, did he promise to stop the earmarks or what?

What happened to that "scapple" he promised. Didn't you watch the debates before intelligently voting? sounds like the answer to this is a "no"

I'm not so worried about his alleged promises and whether or not he keeps them. He's a politician. If he's talking he's probably lying. I'm worried about business getting done.

"alleged" are you going to play the LERXST SHUFFLE® now and claim there is no evidence of his promises then deny all and every link proving it? :rofl

Please don't try and run a game on me up here. I caught you, I pointed out your mistake, and you went on the attack. You can stop anytime.

/sniff sniff