[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

Quote

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]

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

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]

PassedOut, on Mar 12 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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]

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Mar 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

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]

Lobowolf, on Mar 12 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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]

hrothgar, on Mar 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

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]

PassedOut, on Mar 12 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

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

Quote

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]

luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 12 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 06:25 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 12 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

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.