The Obamanation

[TheMercenary]

Steny delivers $8.5 million in earmarks

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was the Dems' point man on rebutting GOP charges that the omnibus was stuffed with pork. His main talking points? That you can't spell "earmark" without an "R" -- and that the GOP was responsible for about 40 percent of the estimated 8,000 earmarks in the bill.

Hoyer, in turn, isn't shy about trumpeting his own earmarks to the folks back in the district, sending word to local papers that he secured more than $8.5 million in projects, including $3 million for highway construction and smaller grants for homeless shelters, bus lines and job training programs.

But the most interesting one: $280,000 for a University of Maryland initiative to study alternative uses for tobacco to help farmers compensate for the drop-off in smoking.

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2009/9506.shtml

[TGRR]

Sometimes this shit makes me laugh until I can't stop screaming.

[TheMercenary]

Let Spending Dogs Lie

Obama chooses not to fight earmarks from last year's tardy spending bill.

http://www.slate.com/id/2212674/

[classicman]

Obama budget director: We'll cut pork after '09 spending bill

Facing mounting criticism of a spending package packed with billions of dollars in earmarks, the Obama administration made a vow Sunday: This president will bring a halt to pork-laden bills.
"[Such bills] will not happen when the president has the full legislative and appropriations process in place," Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told CNN's "State of the Union with John King."

He argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.

"This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game," Orszag said. "Next year we're going to be the starting pitcher, and the game's going to be completely different." Video Watch Orszag say it's too late to fight earmarks in this spending bill »

But House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the argument and noted that President Obama had vowed to take action against earmarks during the presidential campaign.

"If you make a promise, people expect that you live up to it. And that's why this administration's refusal to go in and change this bill, I think, is a false position," Cantor told "State of the Union."

"There is no way anyone could take what Mr. Orszag has said with any credibility," Cantor said.
The spending bill contains nearly $8 billion in earmarks, which are pet projects of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The Senate postponed a planned vote on the bill Thursday after Democratic leaders came up short of the support they needed to pass it.

While many lawmakers consider at least some of the pet projects worthy, most openly reject the system of slipping earmarks into the bill to try to bring home as much "pork" as possible. But many of those who have complained about earmarks also have earmarks in the bill. They argue that until everyone is prevented from taking part in the process, their states or districts should not lose out. Video Watch where some of the earmark money is going »

In a debate last September against Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, Obama discussed earmarks and vowed to go "line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Obama has vowed to sign the spending bill.

"Would we have written this thing differently? Absolutely," Orszag told King. "But we face a basic choice here. ... 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."

But Cantor, R-Virginia, said "people are expecting this administration to live up to the promises made."

Asked whether his argument is undermined by the earmarks from Republicans, Cantor responded that he and House Minority Leader John Boehner had asked their party to adopt a moratorium on the practice. Indeed, some lawmakers from both parties have called for a moratorium.

"There is no question that we've got to change this entire process. It is a system gone bad," Cantor said.

Ahhh a glimmer of hope.

[TGRR]

Cantor.



You might consider a different spokesman. Just saying.

[classicman]

Cantor is not my spokesman, but in this instance I agree with him. The system is what it is, but I think something is wrong here. And if all you got out of that article is that, then you didn't even read it.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Cantor is not my spokesman, but in this instance I agree with him. The system is what it is, but I think something is wrong here. And if all you got out of that article is that, then you didn't even read it.

I saw "Cantor" and started laughing.

Sorry.

[TheMercenary]

"But House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the argument and noted that President Obama had vowed to take action against earmarks during the presidential campaign."

That says it all....

[sugarpop]

I believe he said he would cut earmarks when he was campaigning, not end them completely, and supposedly this bill has less than the previous bill by a lot. (I could be wrong about that. I did see an interview where he said that though.)

But I agree. He should send it back and tell them to take them out. There really should be a line item veto.

Maybe what they should do is give x amount of money to each state depending on population, and that state can spend the money on whatever projects are needed. It is the budget. If there are projects for which states need money, that money should be in the budget in some way.

I just cant get as excited as McCain or some here about earmarks, which represent about 1% of the federal budget every year.

There are fewer in this omnibus bill than previous years and they are more transparent as a result of the Democratic earmark reform in '07.

I think Obama could have been more honest to simply suggest even greater transparency (ie requiring every member of Congress to publish and justify his/her earmarks on their respective website).

Then both parties could stop with the hypocrisy and admit that part of their role is to bring federal $$$ back to their respective communities.

All earmarks are not bad....many contribute to a valid and valued public function.

I recall Sarah Palin lashing out about an earmark for fruit fly research. On the superficial level, it sounds frivolous and wasteful.

I think it was during a speech where she focused on special ed needs and children with disabilities, from her own personal experience.

She might want to read this:

Fruit Fly Research Set To Revolutionize Study Of Birth Defects

A Queen's University study of fruit flies that may revolutionize the way birth defects are studied has identified the genes affected by a widely prescribed drug known to cause birth defects....

or

The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905123832.htm

A couple $ million to a university for more fruit fly research to gain a even better understand to birth defects and/or autism? Sounds ok to me.

[Happy Monkey]

It is impressive how few of the earmarks that are complained about are actually wasteful. You'd think that with such a large number of earmarks, the people who like to complain about them would be able to find a few that are legitimately silly.

[Aliantha]

1% of the budget is a huge percentage when you think about it.

that only leaves 99 other items to fund if they're all the same size.

I imagine there are a lot more than 99 or even 100 funding applications or requirements.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

1% of the budget is a huge percentage when you think about it.

that only leaves 99 other items to fund if they're all the same size.

I imagine there are a lot more than 99 or even 100 funding applications or requirements.

Its about equal to 2-3 months of the cost of our 6+ year folly in Iraq.

[Aliantha]

Yes well I'm not even going to talk about Iraq, but we all know that's a huge amount of money no matter which way you look at it.

[TheMercenary]

If they are such a minor part, Obama and Pelosi should do as they have stated and reduce wasteful spending, and they shouldn't be missed if they are so minor.