While it has no relevance to today’s topic, I found this chart fascinating.Earmarks: So, even though the mere mention of the word brands one as a cranky old white man, I’d like to return to the topic of earmarks, because they are important, and here is why:
First, BHO promised to go through his budgets “line-by-line,” eliminating waste and unproductive spending. To now call this “yesterday’s budget” and promising to start eliminating earmarks next year is very disappointing to a lot of people who voted for him, believing in the promise of change.
Second, at best, earmarks are nothing but graft that a Congressman uses to grease constituents in order to strengthen his hammerlock on his job. At their worst, they are pure corruption.
Third, they are anti-democratic and regressive.
Finally, and most importantly, they were a pivotal issue for many people who voted for John McCain. Being “bipartisan” doesn’t mean inviting a few Republican politicians over to the White House to watch the Super Bowl, it means recognizing that you only won 53% of the voters, and that you need to do something occasionally to make the other 47% believe you actually care about them.
Cracking down on earmarks is the easiest thing to do for the McCainiacs. First of all, it’s the right thing to do; secondly, Obama needs to control Congress, which will only increase his popularity.
And don’t tell me “they’re only a couple percent of the budget.” Please. They will take $8 billion from the current budget. That could have paid for health care for 8 million families for a year. We can’t afford this kind of waste, and Obama can’t afford to ignore promises of this scale.
And don’t tell me “they’re only a couple percent of the budget.” Please. They will take $8 billion from the current budget. That could have paid for health care for 8 million families for a year. We can’t afford this kind of waste, and Obama can’t afford to ignore promises of this scale.
Wall Street: Just in case you have any lingering feelings that Wall Street was a “victim” of the economic crisis just like the rest of us, the Times had two really good columns this week to refute that idea: “Tsunami of Excuses,” by William D. Cohan, the author of a new book on the fall of Bear Stearns, and “The Looting of America’s Coffers,” by regular columnist Tim Leonhardt.
Posts
18 comments:
I am confused where the stimulus spending bill ends and earmarks begin. All people should agree that some spending gives more bang for the buck than other spending. The question is which items should the taxpayers underwrite and when.
Differing interests will differ. Sometimes pork isn't just pork.
I agree. Question:If your congressman didn't bring home any federal money what would he be getting paid for?Talking about the aesthetics of goverment v Its to the point that we my as well chime in get our goody bag of good pork,bad pork and truly needed and deserved. and pay the tab sometime in the future.
I'm also confused about what's what here. All earmarks are not bad. I can't tell you why they aren't in the budget but there is some stuff like spending on Amtrac that perfectly legit. This stuff is a perfectly good whipping boy for just about everybody. The arguement, however, is open to incredible hypocrisy (I know everybody is shocked about that). All these republicans who are complaining vociferously about this account for 40% of the earmarks in this bill.
The president doesn't have a line item veto so there is no mechanism for deleting some of the spending while approving others. Vetoing the bill simply shuts down the government which would be irresponsible and stupid.
I don't think many people were under the illusion that Fuld, Cayne and others were the unwitting victims here but reading that article sure does make your blood boil. Putting those lamp posts on wall street to good use is still a good option as far as I'm concerned.
I am the anonymous. clicked by mistake
Blogmaster: what is the punishment for premature clickulation?
Birdman -- I disagree. While the end result of the earmark may have a good cause, the appropriating of public funds in this fashion is inherently corrupt and inefficient and should stop. Plus for every good dollar spent there is another going to the bridge to nowhere or the Las Vegas Mob Museum.
More importantly -- and I’m still waiting for someone to challenge this – they are the most visible symbol of the bloated, self-serving nature of Congress, and a President who really believes in change, one who will act on it and not just talk about it, should start here. First because it is the right thing to do, and second because he will gain additional political capital for doing so. Congress is held in lower esteem than any individual politician.
Justice Potter Stewart once said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." The same can be said of earmarks.
It has become a generic term of waste, and it can be, but often it is the only method to get something worthwhile funded.
Funding of the SEC is obviously waste, as these idiots could not figure out that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. This is the scariest part of the economic collapse. That this guy was just stuffing the money in Chase and the investigators could not figure that out is truly frightening. Nobody is suggesting he bought them off, they just couldn't see it.
I'll certainly agree that earmarks should be strictly regulated and done with transparency.
I don't think that 50 days into a new administration with the incredible problems facing him that Obama should choose this hill on which to die. It was a budget not written on his watch. Vetoing it would take up an incredible amount of political oxygen that's needed for more important problems.
Term limits for Congress and Supreme court. Would be a good start to limiting pork and give the power back to the people.I doubt that I am of the same political ideology as Birdman. But I agree,fifty days is not enough time. We all are impatient victims of our own microwave latch key generation. I think we will know by the July 4th if we truly do have change we can believe in.
You keep talking about taking on Congress like it was the equivalent of challenging the Chinese to a table tennis match. Congress has no national constituency. A few are beloved at home. Most of them are tolerated because thy represent district’s so gerrymandered that the candidate for the opposing party has a snowball’s chance in hell. And as a national entity their approval rating is under 20%. GWB was looking down on them from a relatively lofty perch. Putting them in their place would require sending the budget back and telling them to remove the earmarks. BHO’s approval ratings would go to 80%. Congress would cave and get in line. But instead, they are now emboldened. God only knows what they send us next.
When I use the term “earmark” I am not referring to a generic act; I mean a directed spending initiative inserted in an unrelated bill by a single Congressman looking to garner favor with some entity. Using that definition there are $8 billion worth in the new budget.
So DB your not anti earmark you just want the cash openly requested. If so I agree. What I'd like people to understand is what the money in the budget is supposed to be for. This requires some rethinking. Lets get out of the killing bidness & start healing. Lets build more schools & hospitals, less prisons, guns,tanks.... Peace
The point about they have no national constituency is what keeps Obama from the veto pen. 90% of them get reelected despite the overall body approval rating on par with Bernie Madoff. Most face little to no opposition and so they don't have to kow tow to the President. We would all love it if he vetod the spending bill, but it would piss them off and probably half will be there long after Obama is in the history books. No President can afford to thumb his nose at the Congress. The Congress may not be loved but most will be back after the next election.
Bird, you can't be anonymous: you are too young. Are you saying you wrote Barbara Allen? And sticks and stones will break my bones? I suppose next you will be claiming to be Will Shakespeare.
Here I am, almost 60 and Dennis just educated me on earmarks. I didn't realize it refers to pork slipped into an already written bill. And it is so obvious now that you mention it. My mistake for taking pork for earmarks. Not all pork is an earmark.
That being the case, I go with Dennis. Unless he knows something we don't BHO could take it up a notch and use John McCain as the bad cop.
Not ALL earmarks are bad (we need a new word). Amtrack, for instance, is a necessity. Additionally, moving forward, I don't feel we'll have any more bridges to nowhere (I was for it before I became a vp candidate and was against it) as every single earmark will have a name attached to it. And, as I understand it, it will all be posted on a website?
Well, I've said my piece. those of you who support Obama and are willing to let Congress run wild better hope his stimulus and recovery plans work and work fast, becaus people soon won't care who got us in this mess, but they'll remember who sits in the WH and how hard they tried to do the right thing - and which promises he kept.
For anyone still uncertain of the definition of "earmark" see the newly poted link.
Also, I have to ask, if you voted for change, how do you expect to get it if you're too timid to take on Congress?
earmark: a mark of identification on the ear of an animal.
I find it appropriate, since the animal is a pig.
oops, a quick click
Post a Comment