By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Ediorial Page columnist
Barack Obama said Tuesday he won't allow Congress to stuff its next stimulus plan with costly earmarks.
What a naive warning from the president elect.
Of course the bill will have earmarks. Congress will be under tremendous pressure from states and cities -- Kansas City among them -- to pump hundreds of billions toward special projects sought by governments.
In fact, in the rush to spend money and stimulate the economy, the next bill out of Washington will receive even less scrutiny per dollar used than most spending plans that come out of Washington.
Now that's scary.
Congress is going to hardly listen to Obama's brave words of Tuesday: "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review.... We're not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well."
But once again, Obama was short of specifics on who's going to do that and how.
The answer is that Congress will be passing out money based on requests from states and cities, requests that will include plenty of earmarks, no matter what Obama says now.
Delicious
Digg
ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
Everybody needs a Lil sump'm sump'm.
The initial bills will be clean of particilar earmarks in Congress. They'll come when individual state projects are requested that's why Obama has appointed a performance officer to be the gate keeper.
When Tip O'Neill said all politics are local this is what he meant. That's why we're building the Kit Bond Bridge. A good politician remembers his roots and keeps them fed and watered. Everybody needs a Lil sump'm sump'm.
If he can keep the worst ones in check we'll be the better for it.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Yep, there will be earmarks.
I just hope the dollars allocated to earmarks isn't more than the dollars not allocated to earmarks.
I think it shows the nievety of Obama to come out and say there will not be earmarks in the stimulus package. I'm sure that after all is said and done, he will put spin on the package saying that while specific projects were identified, they were vetted and were not pork.
Hogwash.
Yeah, that Obama can't do anything right
He should have come out in favor of earmarks, then oneobserver would have applauded him loudly. Can't slip no curveballs past oneobserver.
Seriously, there seems some serious misunderestimation of the power of the bully pulpit here. Obama takes the moral high ground, and he could easily hold embarrassing public floggings at press conferences of anyone who tries to pack the stimulus with pork. Remember, Representatives are within six months of having to start THEIR 2010 campaigns for re-election, and wouldn't you love to run against an incumbent with a clip of Obama naming your opponent as a prime offender in trying to slip earmarks into the stimulus package?
Edith, you would do much better trying to explain yourself.
I am NOT a proponent of earmarks, but they are a reality in Congress that Obama nor any other president has any control over. He certainly will not veto whatever is sent to him and without line item veto authority, which is never going to be, he has no other option. So, he will do the best he can to spin the results in his best interest, like any good politition.
So, Edith, until you know me better than you do or ever will, please don't try to put words in my mouth.
Read it again, oneobserver
Neither Obama nor any other president has any CONSTITUTIONALLY-originated control over earmarks. That's not the same as having no control. As I said below, if Obama continues to hold the moral high ground (i.e., if he's seen by the general public as trying to put national interest above politics, and thus the public gives him some credence), he can stand before the press and slice and dice, by name, anyone who tries to unduly profit politically by the incredibly expensive stimulus package. Then Representative Distelfink gets to campaign for re-election just a few months from now with his opponent running a clip of Obama naming Distelfink as one who tried to slip a bridge project in while the country was in peril. That's powerful stuff.
Moreover, beware making lose-lose-lose proposals. If Obama comes out against earmarks, he's either incredibly naive or incredibly cynical. If he comes out for earmarks, he's got his nose back in the trough. If he says nothing, he's not lending the power of his office to stop a heinous practice that we all decided last election was the worst thing since AIDS.
So Obama can't do ANYTHING that will win your approval. Not a terribly impressive gambit outside the schoolyard, is it?
Well, Edith,
if Obama follows your approach, then it will be after the fact, will it not? And we will have the pork in the stimulus.
As for what he could do or could have done, I would have opted for taking no public opinion at this time -- he could work in the background to let congress know his desires without going public.
I suspect if Obama comes out and lables Distelfink as a supporter of pork in the stimulus package, Distelfink will take one of two approaches:
1. He will point out all the good that his district gained through his support for specific projects that would otherwise gone elsewhere, thus gaining support in his district; or
2. Simply pointing out he was only one of many who used this age-old approach to bring money to his district.
Either way, he is a hero within his district, and that is who reelects him.
Oneobserver-Cf. the police announcing heightened DUI patrols
Working in the background is fine for dealmaking, which is critical to any political resolution of a problem. This is announcing that Obama's going to the court of public opinion, and transgress if you dare; does anyone believe for a moment that Obama is actually unaware that he has no direct authority over earmarks?
I think the public is so flabbergasted over the size of the collapse, the size of any bailout, and the size of the bill we're going to be paying that the business-as-usual approach isn't going to play at election time. This depends, of course, on the perception that everyone's paying their fair share and no one's gaining an advantage, and that perception the President CAN promote.
Safe?
Twas says Bush "kept us safe for 7+ years." Maybe, but that first year? Not so much.
Hey BigSteve
I didn't say it. But if I did, I'd like to follow up with something about the infamous first year of the Bush administration. Liberals like to talk about the warnings that Bush ignored. I know I'll slammed for doing this, but from Ann Coulter's column: But liberals cannot learn that the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." had not a speck of what we call "useful information." The memo read like a fifth-grader's book report that he left to the last minute and had to quickly cobble together with old information on Google. The only "warnings" of future actions by al-Qaida were completely wrong -- for example, suggesting that terrorists might be planning an attack "with explosives" or preparing to attack "federal buildings in New York. In fact, if Bush had directed all members of the executive branch to drop everything and jump on the "warnings" in the Aug. 6 PDB, bomb-sniffing dogs would have been prowling the nation and police lookouts would have been stationed at federal buildings in New York City -- as planes smashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
This will be the first test
This will be the first test for Obama's "change we can believe in". Let's give him a chance before we tear him a new one.
Nukeman
The earmarks challange is change Obama or any other president can not win. All presidents have clamored for a line item veto specifically to address earmarks, but to date the law of the land does not give the president that tool. Congress will attach earmarks to everything regardless of what the President desires. I am going to give Obama a pass on Earmarks, it is congress that we should hold accountable on earmarks not presidents.
kenm_1262
Hey, I tried, Kenneth J. Miller. You don't want to listen, fine.
Edith
Not sure why you are googling names, i guess it is some sort of weird liberal perversion. FYI, my name is not Kenneth J. Miller, sorry you got the wrong guy.
Seriously
SECOND test. First test was appointed positions: was he going to grade applicants by their devotion to the Democratic Party, or by competence? Volcker, or Brownie?
Hey Edie run fast the troop train is leaving!
You wanna bet he won't back a bill with pork in it Edie? Talk is cheap, particularly with the Yommama......
This Will be the big 0's First Test at "Change we Can Believe In
We will soon find-out twas if 0 truly has enlarged gonads, or he is merely another politician who says one thing and does whatever winds his clock.
We could start a poll on this blog with each of our distinguished contributors voting simply yes-there will be earmarks, or no-there will not be earmarks. We can post them to this article, and I will volunteer to summarize the votes into one posting and keep it for future reference when the law is passed and the big 0 either signs it or vetoes it. I wonder what the record is for when a new President vetoed his first piece of legislation?
As expected, I vote a resounding YES.
KCgrh
I don't know what Obama is going to do. I hope he is a good President. You may be right that he will fall right into liberal tax and spend (with pork), but I am not too happy with Bush either. What was it, his sixth or seventh year before he vetoed a bill? You have to admit he wasn't fiscally conservative. And the problem with that is that it removes some of the luster of our criticism of liberal tax & spenders. Yes, Bush cut taxes, which I am in favor, but he just couldn't stop the runaway spending. I think he was trying to be too many things to too many people. I respect your thoughts, but I am an optimist, until proven wrong.
TWAS
I too am so pissed-off at Bush for his spending and lack of vetoes. All I can say, and I think all history will say, is that he kept us safe for 7+ years. For this I am thankful to the man, but, there always is a but, his social policies side sucked.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you!
OMG, OMG, the Messiah is backing a bill with PORK in it??!!! AYSM???
What is the world coming to PORK, OMG, PORK!!
Gasp, it will take some time to recover from this shock.
Rouge steps in it big time
He's NOT backing a bill with pork in it, idiot. Read it this time.
Don't come here without your second cup of coffee in hand.
Can Obama ban earmarks?
The story I'm waiting to see is the media actually pointing out that Obama has no authority to "ban" earmarks from this bill or any bill. My eighth grade civic class taught me that the president can suggest legislation, but that congress writes and passes it. They put earmarks in the various bills because, surprise, THEY CAN.
The president has the power to veto any legislation he/she doesn't approve of, but he has no authority to tell congress what bills they can or can't pass and sent for presidential approval. I don't believe there is any way Obama or anyone in his administration can "ban" congress from doing anything. It's called checks and balances, each branch of government has certain powers. If Palin would have come out and said she was going to ban congress from doing anything, the media would have jumped all over her lack of basic knowledge of how the goverment functions.
Amazing
Yael, are you suggesting the congress is not going to roll over and do whatever the newly elected president wants, amazing. Of course congress is going to load up the pork, this stimulus is a congressmans dream come true, dole out trillions of dollars then go home and tell the people how much money he brought home from DC.
If you really wanted to stimulate the economy, cut the budget, cut taxes, especially business and corporate taxes, cut the capital gains taxes, and realize that more government spending may solve a short term problem but years of trillion dollar deficits will do more harm than anything the former Soviet Union or AQ would ever be able to do.
Someone needs to stand up and clearly articulate the limits of government at all levels.
It's Really Amazing
you believe that since trickle down economics has proved to work so well in the past.
Cutting the budget? Why don't we start with getting out of that money-sucking abyss aka Iraq?