Orszag: Obama Will Sign Omnibus Despite Earmark Pledge
EmailDuring our exclusive interview today on "This Week" President Obama’s chief number cruncher, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, said the president will sign the 2009 omnibus spending bill, despite his campaign pledge to reduce earmarks.
The Senate is going to be debating an omnibus spending proposal that has several thousand earmarks. During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to reduce earmarks to below 1994 levels — when the GOP took control of the House — or less than $7.8 billion a year.
Despite the earmarks, Orszag said Obama will sign the bill.
"This is last year’s business. We want to just move on. Let’s get this bill done, get it into law and move forward," Orszag said.
The OMB director said Obama intends to work on earmark reform in the future.
"We’re going to be working with the Congress," Orszag said. "We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they’re also transparent. We’re going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those."
"But he signs this bill this year?" I asked Orszag.
"This is — this is last year’s business. We just need to move on," he said.
–George Stephanopoulos
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
You didn’t really think Obama was serious about eliminating earmarks, did you?..lol
And how come all we heard for years was ” deficit spending was bad”? Now we see our new President setting record level deficits as far as the eye can see and the same people are saying ” deficit spending is good”…lol
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 1, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
Who cares!! If its earmarks or not , i always felt if the citizens was getting back something from the government in a form of project one way or the other , then finally MY tax dollars have something to show for it .
Many tax payers including myself never ask for MY TAX dollar to go into invading Iraq. but Bush took my money and went with it anyway.
so if our city or towns getting back something ..anything. it better than war or money/welfare for billionare companies.
Posted by: ronnie | March 1, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Please, please don’t ask Karl Rove to be on your program again. He is rude, tries to talk over everyone, does not give credit to others or pause to listen to their argument. He appears to be a very reckless man who considers his point of view to be the only credible one.
Posted by: Mary Chavez | March 1, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Cool. Is that the one they slipped NAIS into? If so that should put a stop to small family farms and leave us completely dependent on factory farms and foreign sourced food. I can’t hardly wait.(sarcasm)
Posted by: jan | March 1, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
I watched the ABC News, “The Round Table” this morning. It was disgusting to watch the extreme left media attack Karl Rove, a play of three-to-one at the table, in favor of Democrat media. All the Democrat guests would say was how Bush failed the economy, when, in fact, the economic downturn started with public credit failing, then the housing market followed. The crisis began toward the end of Bush’s term, so if he had more time, and support from Democrat leaders (as if that would happen), his plan would’ve worked.
During the discussion, the guests discussed how Obama would tax oil companies, which lead me to wonder: If Obama heavily taxes the oil companies, then would the oil companies continue to spend four billion dollars/year in alternative energy research and development to help the US economy. As of now, big oil is flipping the bill for this. My question do the taxes Obama propose worth losing 4-billion dollars of non-taxpayer money used for research?
Is Obama cutting off his nose dispite his face?
Posted by: K M | March 1, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
“During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to reduce earmarks to below 1994 levels — when the GOP took control of the House”
Could you PLEASE provide a little context and tell us what 1994 levels were? And then how it compares to this omnibus? You know, do a little reporting?
Posted by: jhw539 | March 1, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
“Who cares!! If its earmarks or not , i always felt if the citizens was getting back something…” Yeah, sure. I’ll bet you complained obsessively about Bush and his deficits, no?
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 1, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
A little digging around suggests that the 1994 earmarks (when Republicans took over Congress and the specific pledge Obama made) were around $7.8 billion. Earmarks in the 2009 omnibus budget bill, which was submitted by Bush months ago, are estimated at $7.7 billion (half that if you ask the congressional democrats, but I don’t trust their definition).
Rather than just parroting news releases and statements from both sides, why not also publish the real facts so we can have an informed opinion?
Posted by: jhw539 | March 1, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
I think we need to change the tax system. I say the Federal government should tax the states to cover their costs then let the states do all of the other taxes that way if poeple think some “porky ammnedments” and earmarks are so important then unless you live in that State you won’t have to deal with them and if you live in that state then you can raise your objections.
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
It was John McCain who based his campaign on stopping earmarks, not Obama. The assumption that the pubic is against earmarks has to be false. People understand that their elected officials are there to make spending decisions that include allocating funds for specific projects, many of which are very important. You’re always going to be able to find someone who disagrees with a particular project, and of course sometimes money might be misspent, but a generalized attack on earmarks represents shallow reporting. Individual projects are what needs to be scrutinized, not earmarks in general.
Posted by: Bobby Salvin | March 1, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
Earmark-fund projects never get vetted. Many government departments and agencies fund projects based on proposals received and vetted by staff or piers. This process screens out the weak ones and often improves the ones funded. Why should we allow other projects to go ahead at tax-payer’s expense based only on one congressman’s political decision?
Posted by: centrist | March 1, 2009, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
I watch every Sunday. I will not continue to watch if criminals like Karl Rove have the platform he had today. He won’t appear at a Congressional hearing, but he loudly and rudely dominated an entire panel of credible journalists. He had his 15 minutes, we had 8 years of his bad ideas and dirty tricks. I expect a heated debate among credible decision makers and journalists with different views and party affiliations when I tune in. I do not support the presence
of someone who is evading responsibility for his misdeeds, and no longer has anything of value to offer except misleading inuendo. Some people never change. This last election sent a was a convincing message that the country is ready for change.
Posted by: MaryRN | March 1, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
” Obama heavily taxes the oil companies, then would the oil companies continue to spend four billion dollars/year in alternative energy research and development to help the US economy. As of now, big oil is flipping the bill for this”
LMAO>>>
Now THAT’s Funny!
Posted by: Realilty | March 1, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Dear George,
I like you. Really I do. I have watched your show for years, and now I will no longer do so.
Two reasons:
1. Karl Rove – the fact that you gave this criminal with nothing relevant to say, a criminal who had the gall to ignore the congressional subpoena, a criminal who is himself responsible for much of what is now wrong in this country, a national forum to spout his nonsense, is beyond the pale. No more.
2. You consistently sponsor these GOP lunatics because you are owned by the conservatives who sponsor your network.
No more.
Where is your conscience, George?
Posted by: nicole | March 1, 2009, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
And the trail of broken promises gets wider… “Change?” What a JOKE!
Posted by: hmn... | March 1, 2009, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency’s budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
When Congress decides to abandon this ability, earmarks will end.
In this instance the budget is over 400 billion and the earmarks are around 3 billion, which is less than 1% of the total budget.As usual the Republicans call attention to an insignificant issue to promote their obstinance instead of proposing constructive ideas.
Posted by: Rocky from Mentor Ohio | March 1, 2009, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
First of all this is last year’s business. Get it done.
Second over 40% of the “earmarks” are from the Republican aisle. Most of it is agriculture incentives to the south to maintain various ag-industry
Third why isn’t anyone attacking the special interest lobbyists that push these “earmarks” on their leaders. It is necessary for both sides of the aisle to pander to these folks to keep their elected jobs.
But let’s just cut the earmarks out and see how everything works. Just like how we should just step back and let the entire economic system crumble. It will straighten itself out you know, that’s how capitalism works even though there is absolutely no precedent that supports those claims.
Posted by: To those who don't read | March 1, 2009, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
Karl Rove should be in jail, not on tv.
As many have noted, earmarks are not a large percentage of the budget. They need to be examined and analyzed but it is reasonable to proceed now to pass this budget “as is” and put in place a process that will cause them to be examined BEFORE they are included in next year’s budget.
Talking about them and suggesting delays is just a GOP tactic – they don’t really care about the earmarks. All they want to do is stall and delay and throw sand under Obama’s wheels.
Posted by: Irmanator | March 1, 2009, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
It doesn’t matter that this is “last years business”. It is still for this year in his term. And, it doesn’t change the economic situation. Obama touted what a crisis we are in that he rushed the porkulous package. Did he lie!? He should be more responsible about our economy. He is not true to his words. He totally hoodwinked me. I don’t believe anyone else, not for one second, realized they were voting for socialism.
Posted by: t | March 1, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
For Jan:
“All the Democrat guests would say was how Bush failed the economy, when, in fact, the economic downturn started with public credit failing, then the housing market followed. The crisis began toward the end of Bush’s term, so if he had more time, and support from Democrat leaders (as if that would happen), his plan would’ve worked.”
Are you serious? I mean, really? The crisis didn’t start with the housing troubles, the housing troubles were a result of Bush’s non-regulatory policies. It started because of the total lack of regulation, Bush’s plan for everyone to have home ownership (whether they could afford it or not), his selling of “creative” lending packages (along with Greenspan)urging everyone to try to get a loan, and ending with predatory lenders making millions on people who couldn’t afford home loans, just to sell the bad loans to other countries, etc. I guess you don’t remember after 9/11, Bush’s oh-so-intelligent advice to the American public?? Go out and spend. During the holidays he asked Americans to go out and spend. Never mind that Americans might not have had the money to spend, who cares? Go out and spend on your credit cards, and hold up the economy. Borrowing from Peter to give money to Paul.
This economic catastrophe is failed Bush policies: From tax cuts during a war (which McCain was vehemently against until he decided to run for President), the incredible war spending for 2 fronts (the oil revenues were supposed to pay for it, remember?). Republicans were all for it until Americans woke up to what was going on, then Bush became a 4-letter word to them, too, and they’re trying to blame everything on Obama. What idiots.
Most economists agree that it will take tax and spend policies to get our economy out of the toilet bowl that Bush put it in. Higher taxes among the most wealthy, along with the new government spending to stimulate growth and create jobs.
If you were to look at a graph of US deficits and tax cuts, they coincide. The wealthy always have had, and always will have, enough tax shelters to pay LESS than most of the rest of us. Cindy McCain paid about 20% income tax on millions in income. We made just over $250K and paid over 28%. Why? Like her husband famously said, the wealthy have “better lawyers,” more tax loopholes, etc. You don’t see the disparity here? The US has done better, has paid off debt and run a lower deficit under Democrats because the Republican “trickle-down” economics,complete de-regulatory practices where corruption loves to breed, where the bulk of money really is held in the hands of very few who end up paying less in taxes, doesn’t work.
I won’t even start on your big-oil comment.
Posted by: serious53 | March 1, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
There are a few things you should know before voicing opposition or blowing this out of proportion. First thing is not all earmarks are bad. Second approximatly 40% of the earmarks were put in the bill by republicans. Third it is not even 1% of the total budget. Fourth President Obama never said he would do away with earmarks just reduce them down the the numbers prior to 1994 which I believe was 7.8 Billion.
Posted by: Reese | March 1, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Exactly Reese, but folks just comment and don’t read. And like to use words like porkulus and socialicious, absurd. Lay of the talking points folks and use your own minds for a minute. The internet is not all blogs, there are plenty of government records available to read. Read the bills and the proposals and you will see that most of what is said by the pundits is simply hyperbole.
In short, think for yourself.
Posted by: The cheerleader of decline | March 1, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
K M wrote
“During the discussion, the guests discussed how Obama would tax oil companies, which lead me to wonder: If Obama heavily taxes the oil companies, then would the oil companies continue to spend four billion dollars/year in alternative energy research and development to help the US economy. As of now, big oil is flipping the bill for this. My question do the taxes Obama propose worth losing 4-billion dollars of non-taxpayer money used for research? ”
I believe the stimulus bill puts 15 billion into renewable energy development per year. If the oil companies stop investing in renewable energy research that would be a blow but it is lessened by the government’s $15 billion commitment.
I also doubt the oil companies are completely altruistic in their research investment so they will continue to fund this research if they feel it will make them money in the future. They do get to use it as a tax writeoff, after all.
Posted by: Irmanator | March 1, 2009, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Irmanator….
I agree with your altruistic point. They will eventually realize that the money is to be made in the development and research of those technologies. They have to have contingency plans, oil is not renewable and it will disappear one day. At least you hope they think of those sorts of things from a business perspective.
Posted by: The cheerleader of decline | March 1, 2009, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
Yes, Rove should be in jail, and why is he not.
Earmark, 50% are Republicans, they are still trying to driving that limbo in the ditch, just whimming, they should loose their elected job, Republicans are just stalling, as usually, one reason they lost the election, remember them at the poll, how they play games with the America people.
Posted by: chu13ck | March 1, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Republicans like to grab on to a word and shake the hell out of it.
The word for today is: EARMARKS.
Earmarks are just special projects. A bill cannot be written for every almighty project that needs money. So they are added to the bill.
The current money figure of the EARMARKS is UNDER the 7.8 billion that Obama said he would use as limit.
Further these projects actually DO something- Republicans have tried to use the word to mean USELESS FLUFF, but that is not true.
Paying George Bush et al salaries for the last 8 Years was EARMARKS- defined as useless flufff.
Posted by: fiona | March 1, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
President Obama has done a great job of delivering on his campaign promises, but not a perfect job. Perfection cannot be expected in the messy business of politics. Obama cut taxes on the middle class and has made good on most of the other important things he promised during the campaign. The earmarks issue is not one of the most urgent things that need addressing.
Actually most of the earmarks I’ve read about seem worthwhile expenditures; the “mafia museum” type earmarks appear to be the exception, not the rule. The earmark process needs to be reformed or replaced eventually, but there’s no reason it should be a top priority this year.
Posted by: Len | March 1, 2009, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
Why do we assume that they are Earmarks only from the DEMs? Let’s get real the GOP cannot criticize when they use them.
The man has a country to run,. Congress has to anti up to it’s responsibilities, it seems to me that we vote them in, and like it when they bring home the bacon.
Posted by: Thinking | March 1, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
So all the earmarks don’t belong to the Dems…wonder how many more (and how much) came from the other side of aisle.
Paul’s was pretty spendy.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/ron-pauls-earma.html
Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill. His earmarks included repair projects to the Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Posted by: treetracker | March 1, 2009, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm
In other surprising news,the sun is scheduled to rise in the East.
Posted by: corwin | March 1, 2009, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm
And Thinking( i do appreciate the irony of your nom de plume),earmarks are a monerarist nightmare.Things that can’t make it through a pretty porous budget process tend not to be worth much.Certainly,there’s a financial downside to be considered.But also a political.It seems as if the President lied about his pledge.That may not bbe too disconcerting to the True believers.But,if the economy should continue to worsen(and I’m shorting),he will have taken a credibility hit when promising a solution.And it’s building on a foundation af broken campaign ‘promises’ such as no lobbyists in my admin ,get out of Iraq by 2010.You seem to presume anyone who disagrees with Barryu is out to get him.Most of us want things to work.We’ll have to wait and see
Posted by: corwin | March 1, 2009, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
Remember, one man’s earmarks are another man’s district beneficial spending.
What pompous, self-righteous, critics people can become when spending is not directed specifically toward them.
Posted by: vgirl1 | March 1, 2009, 8:04 pm 8:04 pm
Whatever.
They are only earmarks when the money is not being spent in your city or state.
No one seemed to care that I did not want my tax dollars to be spent in Iraq.
BTW, please never, EVER have that rat Rove on your show again unless he is sporting an orange jumpsuit.
Thank God, Katrina was there to cut him down to size.
Posted by: Jules | March 1, 2009, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh? Why do these criminals get air time is beyond me….
Posted by: Piccola | March 1, 2009, 9:54 pm 9:54 pm
George, Karl Rove proved to be a poor guest on the Roundtable as he consistently talked over every and played his role of talking piece of the Republican Party pretty sadly. Keep him off!
Posted by: job | March 1, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
Several of you said Rove shouldn’t have been on the show. Does that mean that you only want to listen to people who say what you want to hear?
Several of you said that pet projects are ok. Does that mean that 50 billion for high speed transit from LA to Nevada is a worthwhile project? Give me a break.
Several of you seem to think that it is convenient to blame the economy on Bush.
Yes, you’re right you should blame him for not vetoing the legislation and BUDGET that was presented by Democrat controlled house and Senate.
The president does not create the budget, but he should have vetoed the free spending.
Several of you think the Republicans are to blame for the economic meltdown.
Are you so simple as to think all the evil
in the world can be assigned to the Republicans?Are you stupid?
Bush and McCain tried to reign in Fannie Mae and failed because of Democratic majorities. They should have kept pressing but they did not. Look at the list of people who profited most from Fannie Mae and you will find they are all democrats. And do you deny that Barnie Frank was (literally) in bed with
the guy in charge of Fannie Mae.
We don’t have a chance of dealing with the many problems we face in our country until a whole lot of you are willing to admit culpability of the Dems.
And a whole lot of you are going to have
to be willing to listen to ideas that dont’ come straight out of the party manifesto.
By the way, he is not my president until he shows a real birth certificate. I wish I had the money that has been spent stonewalling everyone who’s asked to see something that should be very easy to display.
One last question, if Barack’s real name
is Barry Sortero why did he change his name to a Muslim name if he is a Christian? Watch what he does to Israel in the next year.
Posted by: gary | March 1, 2009, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm
Get over the thing with Rove. He’s done nothing compared to everything going on right now in obama’s world. We get a Treasury Sec. who couldn’t figure out how to pay his taxes? Come on! I don’t see anyone prosecuting Daschle or Geitner for failing to pay fines in relationship to their outstanding tax bills (they paid their original bill. First off, would you or I have gotten away with not paying our taxes for so long and would we have gotten out of paying the accumulated interest on that outstanding bill as well? I don’t think so!)Anyhow, I found it entertaining to see just how many Democrats don’t pay their bills! Get that Charlie Rangel dude to honestly answer questions under oath, if he can(you know, the one who helped write the tax laws and didn’t remember he had to pay any; he might get Pelosi to fly him in her private jet)HA! And these people are part of “Obamanation” and they’re going to help us out of our economic crisis?
So called “hope” comes in the form of a charlatan who is virtually a puppet for BIG time Chicago hoodlums and Middle Eastern thugs — and we have him at the helm of our country. Let’s see, he successfully voted present how many times while a senator? Yep. That makes me feel much better knowing he will now vote “present” with this stimulus! And the stimulus will take care of paying back all the little folk that committed crimes to get him elected (i.e. ACORN–let’s not forget how Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck helped elect a president, etc., etc.)Yeah, these projects will stimulate an economy.
And let’s not forget about the stimulus plan to legalize murder. Hussein is big on that. Yeah, that will stimulate and produce work–ridding the country of all those babies and old people. Morticians, abortionists, hit men– should all make a good income under hussein.
And finally, I’m sick to death to continue hearing about how Bush screwed it up. He didn’t! Last election, the country DIDN’T elect a KING! However, Hussein, and his demented need for power, may change the course of our country to look more like czarist Russia than what the founding fathers had wanted.
No, the unholy trinity of Pelosi, Frank and Reid have worked overtime to help make this affair (economic crisis) the best it could be! Congrats, you did a bang up job! Lest we forget though, Madame Frank was in a “love affair” with a dude over at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack at some point during the last 3-3 1/2 years leading up to this crisis (could have colored his decisions a tad); Dodd and another rep. got sweetheart deals but didn’t know it. Just to mention a few.
The Clinton administration was insistant that minorities HAD to be given loans for homes regardless. Bush gave us a growing economy and obscenely low interest rates which furthered the mess. A Democratic controlled Congress, during the last 2 yrs. of Bush’s admin put the nail in the coffin folks and with a little help from some corrupt Republicans, this thing exploded beyond imagination.
Obama’s lack of knowledge and even a miniscule of background experience, has painfully shown us his lacking abilities and anyone with a lick of sense should be scared!
This economic crisis is global and we’re all in deep serious trouble. Not obama or his convicts have a clue what to do (not that anyone else does either at this point because this is beyond what anyone has ever seen). All we can do now is buckle up and prepare for impact. Hummm, I wonder if Chris Mathews is still feeling the tingle up his leg?
Posted by: needfreshair | March 1, 2009, 11:37 pm 11:37 pm
This post is for Ronnie: There are no tax dollars; only China money and whomever else will loan us money.
We have no money, just printing presses.
Posted by: DJ | March 2, 2009, 12:00 am 12:00 am
NEVER AGAIN WILL I BELIEVE ANYTHING OBAMA SAYS. EARMARKS AND LOBBYISTS ARE HIS WAY TO RUN GOVERNMENT AFTER CAMPAINGING ALLOVER THE COUNTRY ABOUT CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. BS. HE IS JUST ONE MORE CHICAGO MACHINE POLITICIAN WHEN WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING WAS A LEADER. HE HAS NO LEADERSHIP ABILITY FOR SURE.
Posted by: ROBERT T. DAVIS | March 2, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
You people are absurd here. If you had any idea of what both parties have done to this country in the past and present besides what you read on the media machine, you would tremble. Rove is a criminal, clear and cut, he is obstructing justice and has no privilege to do such.
As for the earmarks both sides share the blame. And if YOU people would actually have read or payed any attention to the campaign, Obama never said that he would “eliminate” pork barrel spending, that was McCain. Obama mentioned reducing it.
Point is over 40% of this new bill has spending submitted by the GOP, in fact a large majority of it is money to aid the flailing ag-industries in the South. So before you get bent out of shape, screaming insolence like he’s a Muslim and not an American citizen (you do not exist in reality) or that he is bringing socialism, you should look at both sides, because they are all guilty as sin.
But have fun being at times bigoted, uneducated swine. You all sound like conspiracy theorists saying “you know.” You have no idea, like I don’t either about the current situation, and only 35 days or so to judge on.
Posted by: The cheerleader of decline | March 2, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
Have you seen some of these earmarks?
$200,000 for “Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program
$5.8 million earmark for the “Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate…for the planning and design of a building & an endowment
National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez
I don’t want my hard earned money going to pay for such ridiculous causes. They should be privately funded.
This administration hasn’t been going 100 days yet and already I’m sick to my stomach with all the garbage they are flinging at us. Other parts of this stimulus bill you won’t hear about:
Public school buildings asking for government funding will not receive any if they are renting their building out to churches anytime during the week. Talk about intolerance and religious discrimination!
God help our country.
Posted by: DaMama | March 2, 2009, 10:18 am 10:18 am
Good ol’ Obama. Keepin his promise to bring change to America. Except the only change I see is whats left in my wallet after this stupid stimulous bill.
Posted by: Bill | March 2, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
When are people going to realize that you never believe what a politician says (no matter how articulate and convincing they are)but instead what they do. Obama has hedged on so many promises but people are still high on the Kool-aide. Hopefully they will wake up before he radically damages the fabric of what made this country great and takes us down the road of failed European-style socialism.
Posted by: Leno | March 2, 2009, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
And I wus thinking it wus Congress tat had no ba!!s.
Posted by: madmilker | March 2, 2009, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
I did not vote for him and unfortunately he seems to be proving me right..”it’s ok to sign with earmarks because it is last years business? “Really ???????????, you are signing it this year, it is this years business now..so much for promises
Posted by: kathy | March 2, 2009, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm
More of the same? What happened to making changes and no earmarks? I see a rough 4 years of “more of the same”.
Posted by: Fran | March 4, 2009, 6:56 pm 6:56 pm
President Obama, didn’t you say during your campaign that you were going to reduce ear marks that are put into congressional bills? As I understand it, the omnibus spending bill has several thousand ear marks, and yet you will sign the bill anyway because, according to your Budget Director, Peter Orszag, this bill is last year’s business.
How can you consider it to be just last year’s business when it has been brought into this year’s agenda? So, President Obama, don’t put your signature on that bill until all of the earmarks are removed, or greatly reduced. Remember your promise to the American people during your campaign, promises that got you elected to the highest office in the world. According to you, your presidency will not be business as usual. There will be change in Washington and reduction of ear marks was considered part of the change.
What else did you promise us that will not come to pass?
I didn’t vote for you and I am not sorry for the vote that I cast.
Posted by: Joan | March 4, 2009, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
We don”t have money to waste on pork barrel spending.
Posted by: Luis A. Rivera | March 4, 2009, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm
President Obama claiming that the bill is last year’s business is a poor excuse and a betrayal of his campaign promises. He should step up and veto the bill.
Posted by: marion | March 4, 2009, 8:17 pm 8:17 pm
It is shocking to hear that, after all his campaign promises about not allowing any earmarks or pork if he were president, he is prepared to sign the budget bill loaded with pork. Is he turning out to be just another politician who will promise anything to get elected? Is that the change we can expect – just campaign hot air. People trusted him. Was that misplaced or were we conned?
Posted by: Badri | March 4, 2009, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
Would it be so hard to eliminate them and then sign the bill? Perhaps if so, things should be changed! I don’t think he should sign it as is.
Posted by: Karen | March 4, 2009, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm
Congress should be ashamed to even bring this ridiculous earmarked bill to the floor. This country needs tax reduction, not inflationary spending to ensure someones re-election.
The entire Democratic-liberal Congress is a disgrace to this country. We are a proud people out here, and we deserve better.
Remove your additional taxes, reduce your spending on entitlements, and let the American worker get on with his life. We are very tired of paying for the other guy from our hard-earned funds, and then getting additional taxes added on.
Posted by: Bob | March 4, 2009, 8:53 pm 8:53 pm
OMG! First of all, any person who takes on the presidency is crazy. No matter what they do they are eaten alive, literally. But they know what they are facing when they run. Obama has done a fantastic job; he is tough, smart well spoken (refreshing for a change after the past 8 years!) But we all know the congress runs this country not him. It is time the politicians and the crooked fat cats of our country understood that we are damn sick and tired of their crap for their personal gain. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH and that way OBAMA is the White House. The special frivolous, asanine projects need to go away, but our President has more important things to address now. I trust that he will do so in time. God Bless him and his family. He needs everyones support and gratitude for the mess he is facing.
Posted by: Karen | March 4, 2009, 9:03 pm 9:03 pm
Obama is losing face value.Those of us who were behind him are losing faith.We should have expected this ,he is a politician.
Posted by: Wanda | March 4, 2009, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
Earmarks show how dishonest politicians cheat the american people. This practice needs to be stopped, now. This can’t be legal. According to the Constitution, we’re supposed to have a vote on things we have to pay for. Government is supposed to work for us.
State and local governments need to handle their own jurisdictions. This California boy doesn’t need to pay for a rain forest in Iowa.
Posted by: JHN | March 4, 2009, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
And the DOW is just lovin’ it.
Stokes are really UP today :(
Posted by: lvh | March 5, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
Sorry—STOCKS are really UP today :(
who knows maybe stokes are too ?? :)
Posted by: lvh | March 5, 2009, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
The lying Barack Hussein Obama strikes again. There is no “change” I can believe in except for the change that now occupies my wallet and bank account and I can hardly believe that!!. Thanks for nothing you lame sorry excuse for a leader.
Posted by: Jennifer | March 5, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
Mr Obama is taking this Nation toward Socialisim…. So…Hold on to your wallets!
Posted by: JC | March 7, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
Obamanation is quickly becoming an
abomination! Soon we’ll be hearing
about the “malaise” the country is in!
Does the name Jimmy Carter ring a bell?
Obama’s supporters spoke of him during
the campaign as if he were the
“second coming”.
It turns out they were right.
He is the second coming of Jimmy Carter!
Posted by: reaganfan | March 7, 2009, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm