Posted on 03/12/2009 11:15:36 AM PDT by cc2k
Today President Obama signed the final version of last year’s budget, as posted here on Friday while it was making its way through Congress, in order to keep the government functioning. As he explained, there was much to speak well of in the bill:
“Now, yesterday Congress sent me the final part of last year's budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one, a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities.
“That's what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does -- the nearly 99 percent that you probably haven't heard much about.”
However, the President continued, "What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks." He made several points, noting that earmarks need not be inherently evil if they are simply transparent requests for help in areas of legitimate need, and that many who would focus all of their energies railing against earmarks often fight to the teeth for their own.
But the President made clear that there have also been too many examples where earmarking led to corruption, and that while significant progress had been made in the last Congress there is still ample room for reform. He called on Congress to act this year on the principles he set forth, principles that Congressional analyst and historian Norm Ornstein called "a solid, practical and comprehensive set of new steps to take us much closer to the kind of meaningfully balanced system the American people deserve," adding that "The president's proposal is real reform." President Obama laid the principles out clearly:
“In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.
“These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.
“Next, any earmark for 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, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day –- schools, and police stations, and fire departments.
“When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.
“Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.
“And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so.”
|
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Earmark-Reform/:
|
|
It's either the turning point from where Candidate Obama said during the October 7, 2008 Presidential debate, "I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper," to where an increase of spending by 16% for the next 6 months is even better than cheaper
Or perhaps the turning point was a bit later, when he took out his pen and switched from "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," turning to I'll just sign off on all 9,000 of these earmarks without even reading them.
Now, I'm pretty sure he proposed the outright elimination of earmarks before he opposed elminating them entirely.
What’s the problemen with earmarks? They don’t increase spending, they merely divy it out. Would we rather have the president determine each and every appropriation? Given this administration, I’d rather have individual congresscritters do it.
What an empty suit the Obamateur is!
Yea, he will change it as soon as he is out of office..he really means it..does a turning point go in infinite circles if the wheel is tied hard left?
Looks like Obummer farting in the wind again.
Getting rid of earmarks?
What, is he going to wear a hat while making snow angels?
...this is truly sick of the Obama Administration.
I’ve heard of denial, but this...this is dementia in it’s very own catagory...
When are more people going to see this guy for the lying hypocrite he is?
Earmarks are bribes to buy congressional votes.
for even bigger spending bills
“Whats the problemen with earmarks?”
They are done purposely to avoid scrutiny of usual debate and committee and review procedures.
Ive heard of denial, but this...this is dementia in its very own catagory...
Obama, his wife, his administration, the entire Democratic party, and his voter-cult has all the appeal & consistency of wet toilet paper.
Well....at least voters have some impact on their individaul congresscritter. If the budget writing is exclusively in the hands of the leadership or the prez, they have even less imput. How is that a good thing? In any case, earmarks don’t affect the overall size of the budget anyway so it much to ado about very little.
Bribes? Perhaps....but we had massive porkbarrel and earmarks in the late nineteenth century yet government remained very small.
Does it hurt to be clueless?
And your point is?
"What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks."Â He made several points, noting that earmarks need not be inherently evil if they are simply transparent requests for help in areas of legitimate need, and that many who would focus all of their energies railing against earmarks often fight to the teeth for their own. But the President made clear that there have also been too many examples where earmarking led to corruption...but only through most of the 62 year span from 1933 to 1995, so it was okay. Happy days are here again.
So they were going to spend that amount of money regardless, and the slimes were just "redirecting"? Is that what you believe? These thieves are wiping each other's arses with the "limited budget" laws.
How about, "I need this much money for my pet piggy, so add it on to the total, and once everyone has all the money they want, then we will add it all together and call that our minimum. I will then vote for your pig as 'required' if you vote for mine."
The only limit to how much money they think they can spend is how much they want to. They are going to raise taxes, sell more bonds to the Chinese, print more paper. These Effers can quit tomorrow, and live forever on the pensions and independent health care they voted themselves. You're the one, and your children, grandchildren and great,great,great grandchildren will pay.
The fairy tale of a limited budget died years ago, like Tinker Bell at the Retarded Punch Press Operator's Pagent. From lack of applause...
His idol Ron Paul likes earmarks..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.