CNN attacked the practice of earmarking and criticized a few senators for doing it on Oct. 9, but the segment from Dana Bash didn't mention President Obama's campaign promises on the issue or his failure (thus far) to fulfill them.
"Earmarks," John Roberts teased as he introduced congressional correspondent Bash's segment. "We heard that word a lot during the presidential campaign last year. While they're perfectly legal, critics see them as conflicts for members of Congress and a troubling way to get deals done."
After an introduction like that it would have been natural to include what Obama said on the campaign trail about earmarks.
According to PolitiFact.com, Obama called for earmark reform in the first president debate saying, "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Obama also said in a later debate, "Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem."
Since that time the president pushed for and signed a $787 billion stimulus bill which included "a handful of projects" PolitiFact considered earmarks. He also signed a $410 billion budget Omnibus full of 9,000 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion.
Bash's segment didn't mention the president at all, but focused on a report from Taxpayers for Common Sense which examined earmarks by18 senators on the Defense Appropriations committee and those who gave them campaign contributions.
The CNN report specially focused on earmarks by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and campaign contributions from employees of those same companies receiving earmarks.
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Earmarks are inherant to the
Fri, 10/09/2009 - 15:55 ET by notonmywatchEarmarks are inherant to the subversion of the USA. They'll never get rid of them without being utterly forced to.
They perpetuate a welfare system in which you pay taxes, and future taxes are collateral for foreign loans, then they give each district some of that money back.
Completely unconstitutional and un-American, but if congresspeople don't play the game, their districts lose out significantly with respect to the rest of the country, and they won't get elected.
Set up a trough, and the pigs have to feed. It's exactly the same as welfare.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chucks-pix/
This is all he is!
Fri, 10/09/2009 - 19:44 ET by Marat"And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
What a bunch of crap! He can read those bills all year long but he either signs the whole bill or vetos it or puts it in his pocket and walks away. There is NO "line item veto"!
Just more of his "hot air" hope and change.
Obama is all talk on the earmark issue..
Fri, 10/09/2009 - 20:08 ET by Gary HallBack in 2006, then jr adolescent Senator Barrack Obama joined with Sen. Coburn (R) in co-authoring the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Simply put, the legislation was designed to remove anonymity from earmarks. It was so despised by the big spenders, that Sen. Byrd and Sen. Stevens immediately put secret holds on the bill [keeps it from a vote.] The national media caught wind of Steven's, a Republican, action here, and the secret move became a national story. A couple of weeks later, it was revealed that Sen. Byrd, a Democrat, was in on the secret blocking from the start. Instantly media attention dried up.
In the end, the bill passed and President Bush signed it into law - the media did not notice. I'd probably consider it the one actual serious potential accomplishment for Obama. It's very interesting that as a candidate, he never mentioned it - nor did the press ever tout it as one of his achievements, nor that it was a bi-partisan effort.
Any thoughts? And what has become of it?
(;~/ gary
Gary... ...and yet 'O'
Fri, 10/09/2009 - 20:29 ET by bigtimerGary...
...and yet 'O' is all for holding any info in a bill to be put forth for at least 72 hours in advance...seems I heard he thought it should be at least a week the public would be able to read it all when he was on the messiah trail in the primaries...(I realize I'm getting off track of ear-marks, yet these are in these Bills as well, if you know what I mean)
Matters not when, what, where, who and why...the dems do as they please...they always have the msm as their bully-pulpit...always will.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
bt.. well I think it
Fri, 10/09/2009 - 20:44 ET by Gary Hall.. these major bills should be out in public view for at least a month before they are voted on. And that holds true for a bill coming up for vote in committee, as well - for example the health care spend a trillion and tax you for it while slashing benefits for seniors bill coming out of the Senate Finance Committee.
(;~. gary