Today’s Q’s for O’s WH – 3/4/09
EmailDuring today’s briefing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was joined by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
TAPPER: President Obama cited a few ag subsidies in his budget that he thought could be eliminated. How many more do you think could be eliminated? Obviously, this is an area where a lot of government reform groups have said there’s a lot of fat that could be trimmed.
VILSACK: This is a time when it’s very important for us to maintain the safety net, as we look at a number of producers. I know that I received probably a letter or two a day from ag groups indicating the stress. Commodity prices have fallen just as stock prices have fallen. And so it’s important and necessary for us to maintain an appropriate safety net. As you all know, budgets are about choices, and you have to make some difficult choices. We — the President has made a number of difficult choices. We need to make sure that those are implemented, monitor the implications of those steps and then take the next steps in the process. I can’t tell you today what that next step will be. I want to see the impact of the steps that we’ve proposed.
TAPPER: Secretary Vilsack a few moments ago spoke about saving $18 million in savings by modernizing financial systems, $400,000 by canceling a consulting contract. And he spoke very movingly about everybody’s tightening their belts in this nation, therefore, the government needs to do so. You probably know where I’m heading with this. The president is going to sign a bill — the spending bill — which contains $8 billion in earmarks. Democrats in the Senate are now calling for the president, if not make an effort to have it stripped in the Senate, to veto the bill. Evan Bayh has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. I don’t fully understand this argument that this is — we’re moving forward. This bill hasn’t even come to the president’s desk yet. If you guys are really serious, why not take the bull by the horns and get this stuff out of the omnibus spending bill?
GIBBS: Let me try again. What we’ve talked about before, this is the culmination of the legislative business from the previous fiscal year and the previous Congress. The president is greatly concerned, and I think that shows in the efforts that he’s taken to illuminate through transparency and accountability wasteful spending and earmarks in legislation. That’s why he put his on the Internet. That’s why he hasn’t asked for any in the past few years. And the president believes that we can work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending in the future.
TAPPER: But why not now?
GIBBS: Well, we are…
TAPPER: I guess — you make it sound as if the legislation is written and it’s just waiting for him to sign, and it’s not. It’s being worked on right now on Capitol Hill. It’s in the progress of being assembled. So it’s not that he comes to office and this is outstanding business.
GIBBS: Well — well, it is outstanding business in the sense that typically appropriations bills are done before half the fiscal year is over.
TAPPER: Right. But it’s not too late to, like, tell Harry Reid: If you send this to me…… with this $18 billion — this $8 billion…
GIBBS: I think, as I said before, that the president will lay out some very clear objectives on how we move forward. There will be, over the course of the next several years, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills that cross his desk. And we’ll change the rules going forward, understanding that we have to deal with last year’s business.
–jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Rush Limbaugh just invited Obama on the air.
He’ll pay for everything. He will use his SUV’s to drive Obama and his securtity and feed him. All with Rush’s money, not the taxpayer’s.
What you gonna do Obama??? What you gonna do when Rush comes for you?
Take him on and kill the GOP, that’s they way Rush put it.
No telepromters and no earpieces. Just man vs man.
Clucking heard in the White House…..
Posted by: Casey | March 4, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Tapper, put their feet to the fire..I’m disgusted w/ this passing the buck.
Posted by: Hope | March 4, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
Good job Jake. You’re bringing to light that nothing has really changed. I thought he was brought in to change last years business? Matter of fact, I think most people would have expected to jump at the chance to change last years business to this years new “hope and change”. There is no reason they can’t go after those earmarks now, in this bill, unless of course it helps keep Democrats in power come 2010.
Posted by: KR | March 4, 2009, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
Casey, I heard it, too. The O wil make excuses like, ‘oh, I have to get ready for my close -up’
Posted by: Hope | March 4, 2009, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
He’s going to let Congress have their last fling now so, sated by this budget and the stimulus, they will give him a clean 2010 budget in time for the elections. The interesting fight will be in 2011 and 2012, as Congress gets hungry again…
Posted by: jhw539 | March 4, 2009, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
And next year Goober Gibbs will have some other excuse for not cutting wasteful spending ….
Posted by: Kitty | March 4, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
We apparently start moving forward at a date further in the future than the date upon which Obama will sign this bill.
Wherever we go from here, the $8 billion of old but new pork spending will follow in the form of increased burden on the taxpayers. If only declaring it old business would make it so we’d already paid for it. Alas.
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
jhw539,
what planet are you living on??????
Posted by: Lizzie | March 4, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
Lizzie:”jhw539,
what planet are you living on??????”
I’m not really sure what I said was so controversial… Just my opinion, and as it is just a musing on the future with no weight on current issues, it doesn’t really mean much – I just think it will interesting to see in 2010 if my guess is right.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 4, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
jhw:He’s going to let Congress have their last fling now so, sated by this budget and the stimulus, they will give him a clean 2010 budget in time for the elections.
============
They’ve got more on their plate than just budget bills, though.
He’s going to let Congress write the health care bills.
Congress will have to decide on auto bailouts.
I’ll be shocked if Congress can keep spending under control when they are working on issues they know Obama won’t veto.
It’s the same thing that happened to Bush with the Republican Congress.
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Jake – I applaud your efforts to ask the hard questions of this administration. I hope you will continute to do so. Thank you.
I suspect future bills will have the appearance of the “earmark-free” so-called “Stimulus Package”. Specific receiving entities will not be called out within the bill (as they weren’t in the “Stimulus Package”), which will result in even LESS transparency than the wretched process we have today.
Just words, just speeches.
Posted by: tjp612 | March 4, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
According to everything I’ve read – it takes around 26.1 pounds of corn to create 1 gallon of ethanol. Plus making 1 gallon of ethanol requires a lot more than 1 gallon of gas to plow and grow the corn. In essence we are creating a food and fuel shortage to make 1 gallon of ethanol.
Posted by: aray | March 4, 2009, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
Outstanding questions. Unfortunately you got no answers. For a moment there, I thought Gibbs was going to blurt out – “It’s Bush’s fault”.
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 4, 2009, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
The White House talks a good game about slashing unnecessary spending, but they never act when its actually sitting on the table, ready to be cut out of some legislation.
Posted by: matt | March 4, 2009, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
Tapper, how can you let this Gibbs get by with such claims?
Obama, on his election Web site, listed every earmark he’s requested – but not necessarily received – since he came to the Senate in January 2005. The total, including earmarks in which he joined with other senators in making the request, is $931.3-million.
Yet, you let Gibbs say “That’s why he hasn’t asked for any in the past few years.”
Not to mention the 9000 earmarks on the spending bill adding up to $9B. Perhaps you could have asked, “So why not veto the bill?”
Or ask about the massive pork in the stimulus?
Sheesh. Get a pair.
Posted by: Morris | March 4, 2009, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
So in other words, we will move forward and try to stop the pork, after we have squeezed all the money we can get out of the taxpayer…got it.
Posted by: samhiguchi | March 4, 2009, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Banks recieving TARP funds are under fire for following through on previous plans to sponsor trips and events. They are supposed to guard taxpayer funds in a time of economic catastrophe.
The budget, regardless of when it was originally proposed, must refect the reality of the economic crisis for the same reason. Additionally, the budget is completely comprised of taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: mad | March 4, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
Jake,
you would be more effective if you listed exactly what in the bill is unnecessary earmarks with the cost and percentage within the bill instead of repeating the republican mantra.
Posted by: just saying | March 4, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
Morris:”Not to mention the 9000 earmarks on the spending bill adding up to $9B. Perhaps you could have asked, “So why not veto the bill?”
Uh – that’s what he asked.
Just for fun reference, a blast from the GOP Congress era past:
“Until we change that mindset, I don’t know that we’re going to curb the practice (of earmarking. Maybe it’ll take two years in the wilderness of being in the political minority. I hope that’s not what it takes.” – John Flake (R-Ariz 2006)
Earmarks are a bipartisan passion.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 4, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm
that was a game try Jake! Keep at it. Thank You for your efforts.
this WH gig is good practice for when you have a 13 yr old caught in a “story”
Posted by: smith | March 4, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
Jake,
you would be more effective if you listed exactly what in the bill is unnecessary earmarks with the cost and percentage within the bill instead of repeating the republican mantra.
Posted by: just saying | March 4, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
Obama:” On the other hand, what you’re now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it.”
Dear Mr. Obama
It’s price/earnings ratios. The “p” is for price. Price. Got it?
P-R-I-C-E.
Holy cow
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
You might draw more interest into the story by highlighting daily “the line item of the day…” Off the subject but it’s hard to fathom where the $1 billion of AIG money goes each day – a lot of taxpayers would be interested in seeing a a flow chart – a money trail – a day in the life of AIG – something like that.
Posted by: aray | March 4, 2009, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm
You seem to be the only one taking them to task. My thanks to you.
Posted by: Moore | March 4, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Earmarks are a bipartisan passion.
————————————–
Absolutely!! I long for the day when budget austerity is a passion for all of DC.
Posted by: mad | March 4, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
You guys seem to hear only what you want. Bottom line these are earmarks that Bush approved and both parties have been working throughout last year. The president will allow these and set up new rules as he continues in office as to how many earmarks are allowed. However, maybe some of you need to find out what the definition of earmarks are. Your state just may need them. This is not a gottcha moment. Left over business from last year. Let it go people, it will pass because the Repub have so much invested in it. How many are complaining about it …, very few
Posted by: saldunn | March 4, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
If people do not like earmarks, contact your members of Congress to remove earmarks for your state.
Congress makes points with voters when they get earmarks for their state.
My state has:
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) – never asked for an earmark – speaks out regularly against earmarks
Initially when McCaskill started speaking out against earmarks, others from Missouri attacked her for not doing what was best for Missouri.
Sen Kit Bond (R-Mo) – in the current bill – at the top for earmarks.
Posted by: Jim W | March 4, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
You guys seem to hear only what you want. Bottom line these are earmarks that Bush approved
==========
This is a bill Bush was going to veto because he did not approve.
That’s why Congress waited to try to get it passed under Obama.
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Did anyone ask whether the “US” is about to compound its continuing military adventures in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan by going to war in … Mexico? Somebody’d better:
“Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was due in Mexico later this week as the United States signalled it was ready to step up military and other assistance to tackle the heavily armed drug rings ravaging the country’s north.”
Posted by: Human Intelligence | March 4, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
“Earmarks are a bipartisan passion.”
Quite true
“But while Mr. McCain, a former nominee for president, has been among the loudest critics of the earmarks in the bill, the spreadsheet released by Taxpayers for Common Sense shows that six Republican senators are among the top 10 earmarkers, with Mr. Cochran, the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee in the lead”
A number of senators make the top 10 list regardless of which way it is sorted. In no particular order, they included: Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama; Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California; Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri; and Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.
The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, makes the top 10 for the number of projects requested specifically by him, with 36 earmarks worth more than $51 million. But using the broader measure of Mr. McConnell’s overall involvement in more than $75.5 million in earmarks, puts him toward the middle of the pack.”
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
“This is a bill Bush was going to veto because he did not approve.”
So there weren’t any earmarks in the last budget?
You do know that this budget has fewer earmarks that the last don’t you?
“That’s why Congress waited to try to get it passed under Obama.”
Or the New Congress decided to wait for the New President to submit his budget for their approval.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
All of Obamas friends got rich directly from government, including his wife. This guy has no clue that the private sector is the engineer that drove that undeserved wealth. He is now and always will be a man of limited accomplishment in terms of real things. He has done nothing in his life so why do you expect him to know anything about running a business that creates jobs. In his parasitic wine and brie crowd that is too dirty to talk about.
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
Ask Secretary Vilsack about closing some state USDA offices because there is computer access available. It should not matter if the farmer/corporation has to drive a little further for the infrequent trips to the USDA offices. Congress turned down USDA’s proposal to save money by closing the offices.
I just looked at a spreadsheet of things labeled as “earmarks” for my state. I did not see anything that appeared to be corporate or lavish projects.
The projects were very similar to things approved in the stimulus bill, such as road, sewer, water improvements.
Many of the items were to state agriculture projects. It seems the money should have been appropriated under the USDA or other federal agency to distribute to the states, which has been Sen McCaskill’s argument.
Many of the earmarks cover more than one state, some were earmarks to someone other than the state’s member of Congress.
“Cape Girardeau County Sheriff’s Office to provide funding for competitive grants to sheriff’s offices and multi-jurisdiction drug task forces to address specifically meth-amphetamine production and trafficking”
Posted by: Jim W | March 4, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
“You guys seem to hear only what you want. Bottom line these are earmarks that Bush approved ”
Have to agree that this statement is complete folly. Bush didn’t write this bill, Congress did, and it started in the House, controlled by Democrats.
You can only blame Bush for so long for that stubbed toe you guy till you realize that toe is on your foot.
Posted by: KR | March 4, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
My gratitude to you, Jake, for being one of the very few news reporters out there actually endeavoring to report, not simply parrot (and cheerlead). While the vast majority of the MSM continue to turn a blind eye to the many ongoing Obama sleights of hand, you continue to challenge his administration’s proliferating shell games. BTW, Gibbs is so full of hot air, I suspect they’ve filled his shoes with lead.
Posted by: Kat5 | March 4, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Jake , you might be the last journalist left . Nobody else is even asking questions . You might even get an answer someday . Edward R.Murrow would be proud .
Posted by: borntoraisehogs | March 4, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
“I just looked at a spreadsheet of things labeled as “earmarks” for my state. I did not see anything that appeared to be corporate or lavish projects.”
I think the main objection is, are they required right now? If earmarks are so bad, as illustrated by both candidates during the election cycle pinning blame on the previous administration, why are these good? Where the earmarks by the previous administration good as well, or only partly bad?
And are earmarks for the purpose of making community and country better or used to put a bullet on their re-election resume?
I don’t know really. I just hear “earmarks are bad” for 2 years, but these earmarks are good so I’m confused.
Posted by: KR | March 4, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
From AP
“The First Lady helped create a notorious program that dumped poor patients on community hospitals, yet the national media ignore the story. Imagine if her husband were a Republican.
The University of Chicago Medical Center has received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of “redirecting” low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP’s president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes “dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”
Oddly absent from most of the unflattering press coverage of UCMC’s patient-dumping scheme is any mention of the role our new First Lady played in devising the program. A laudable exception has been the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported last August that “Michelle Obama — currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital — helped create the program.”
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
“From AP”
Nope that lunacy is from the American Thinker.
What a shock that right wingers have to hide the source of their garbage
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
Hold your balls Ryan I meant AT.
Funny that you fail to mention that it is TRUE.
Still shooting up kool aid I see.
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
Jake – thanks for some excellent reporting. I had not realized the earmarks had gone as high as $8 billion.
And to think Sen. Schumer (D) said Americans didn’t care about a few pesky earmarks. LOL
Posted by: Peach | March 4, 2009, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
OBAMA LIED. ECONOMY DIED.
OBAMA SPOKE. WE WENT BROKE.
Posted by: OL | March 4, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
“Hold your balls Ryan I meant AT.”
It isn’t at the AP either.
Its right wing posts based on a press release that was sent out 2 weeks ago.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
From the Sun Times. We dont want Ryan C to think we are biased against Mainstream Media now do we?
August 23, 2008
BY TIM NOVAK AND CHRIS FUSCO Staff Reporters
Sen. Barack Obama’s wife and three close advisers have been involved with a program at the University of Chicago Medical Center that steers patients who don’t have private insurance — primarily poor, black people — to other health care facilities.
Michelle Obama — currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital — helped create the program, which aims to find neighborhood doctors for low-income people who were flooding the emergency room for basic treatment.
Hospital officials say such patients hinder their ability to focus on more critically ill patients in need of specialized care, such as cancer treatment and organ transplants.
Obama’s top political strategist, David Axelrod, co-owns the firm, ASK Public Strategies, that was hired by the hospital last year to sell the program — called the Urban Health Initiative — to the community as a better alternative for poor patients. Obama’s wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chairs the medical center’s board, backed the Axelrod firm’s hiring, hospital officials said.
Another Obama adviser and close friend, Dr. Eric Whitaker, took over the Urban Health Initiative when he was hired at U. of C. in October 2007. Whitaker previously had been director of the Illinois Department of Public Health. Obama has said he recommended Whitaker for the state job, giving his name to Tony Rezko, who helped Gov. Blagojevich assemble his Cabinet. Rezko, a former fund-raiser for Obama and Blagojevich, was convicted in June on federal corruption charges tied to state deals.
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
Peace Train – thanks so much for injecting facts into the discussion. I know it will ruin the lib’s day and for that alone, my hat is off to you :-)
Posted by: Peach | March 4, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Gibbs admits the Limbaugh fight is counter-productive. ROFL
Well no kidding. The economy is tanking. Retirees are losing their life savings. And this administration is running an enemies list out of the White House. How very Nixonian of them.
Posted by: Peach | March 4, 2009, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
“Funny that you fail to mention that it is TRUE.”
If it were true why did you need to lie about the source?
Don’t worry, we already know the answer to that.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
At the link below, there is a database of earmarks and a spreadsheet that can be downloaded.
A representative from the “Taxpayers for Common Sense” said the issue was not whether the money is going for good or bad projects, but that there is no discussion or support for why they are the bill. For example, smelly pigs – what is the “need” for the project?
Posted by: Jim Wj | March 4, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
So there weren’t any earmarks in the last budget?
You do know that this budget has fewer earmarks that the last don’t you?
=======
Of course there were earmarks in the last budget. I did not say otherwise.
I said Bush was going to veto this bill. He wanted a freeze on domestic spending, and that’s why this portion of the budget was delayed, a circumstance even Gibbs yesterday said was uncommon.
It’s been widely reported, you can look it up.
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
Here’s the name of the press release so one can find it if they wish
University of Chicago Medical Center Is Failing Emergency Patients, Nations Emergency Physicians Say; Urge Congress to Hold Hearings on the State of Emergency Care
Here’s the section on the Urban health Initiative
In addition, Dr. Jouriles took issue with statements made by the hospital that the Urban Health Initiative is helping patients with non-urgent care find medical homes and that the issue was about patients with non-urgent medical conditions.
“There simply are no other health care providers willing to care for most of these patients,” said Dr. Jouriles. “Many primary care providers are simply not taking Medicare patients, let alone the uninsured or the underinsured. Most clinics don’t have same-day laboratory or X-ray resources needed to determine whether patients have emergency medical conditions. This is an abdication of the hospital’s obligation to provide care to its community and a fundamental assault on the safety net that emergency departments are intended to provide. The University of Chicago Medical Center is receiving considerable tax benefits as a non-profit hospital, with the expectation that it will provide care to its community. If other community hospitals follow suit, it will be catastrophic for the growing ranks of the poor, uninsured and underinsured, especially during this financial crisis. Access to lifesaving emergency care for all Americans is threatened.”
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
“I said Bush was going to veto this bill”
Like he vetoed it in 2007 only to be pushed aside by the Democrats.
You think the threat of veto from a lame duck incredibly unpopular President was a threat?
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
Sen. Barack Obama’s wife and three close advisers have been involved with a program at the University of Chicago Medical Center that steers patients who don’t have private insurance — primarily poor, black people — to other health care facilities.
Michelle Obama — currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital –
———————
They do not mention that this was a patronage job. Created for Michelle when Barack was elected to the Illinois senate. Following that Barack immediately returned an earmark of $1,000,000 to this hospital (looks like payback for the hire).
When Barack was elected to the national senate seat Michelle received a magical raise that almost tripled her salary to the current $317,000. Barack made sure the kickbacks, I mean earmarks, I mean patronage-thanks for giving my wife a job- pork dollars kept flowing. They deleted the job when Michelle left.
Blagojevich is being investigated for such kickbacks as this one between the hospital, and the Obama family.
WHERE IS THE INVESTIGATION ON THIS.
BETWEEN KICKBACKS, AND CAMPAIGN DONATIONS TO TONY REZCO, THE ILLICIT MORTGAGE, SUBSIDIZED BY REZCO HOME PURCHASE, AND SO ON WHERE IS THE INVESTIGATION.
The media willfully ignored Obama’s thuggish Chicago machine history, and now he brings it to Washington, still under media protection, and we the public will pay and pay so he and his family and special interest buds can continue to line their pockets and screw the people.
Michelle actually figured out a way to keep poor people away from the ER.
Does anyone remember Evita Peron.
Can you imagine if Laura Bush had orchestrated such a plan?
Posted by: BO Needs to Go | March 4, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
You think the threat of veto from a lame duck incredibly unpopular President was a threat?
========
I’m not sure what you are arguing about, Ryan C.
A commenter said Bush had approved of the earmarks in the bill Obama is about to sign.
I said the opposite is true, that he was going to veto it.
A veto threat may not be politically very potent, but it does mean Congress would have to come up with enough votes to override a veto.
Instead of doing that, they put off the vote.
So why are you arguing this? Do you think, as the other commenter did, that Bush approved of the earmarks in the current omnibus spending bill?
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
So Michelle Obama created a program that advocates “patient dumping” which is unethical.
Mon Mar 2, 2009 5:36pm EST
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) – “U.S. President Barack Obama has been vague about details of his healthcare reform efforts, but he provided a hint on Monday of one direction he could take — community health centers.”
Sounds familiar.
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
You are one of the few in the room asking questions anything close to what is on the minds of many Americans. There is something going on that we must not understand. Time for some investigative reporting that should have been done prior to election day but wasn’t?
Posted by: ralph | March 4, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
“What you’re now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it,” he said to reporters after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Wow. Will someone please ask Gibbs if President Obama knows what a P/E ratio really stands for????
Amazing!
Posted by: OL | March 4, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
“Created for Michelle when Barack was elected to the Illinois senate.”
Obama was elected to the IL Senate in 2006. Michele Obama did not start working for the University of Chicago Hospitals until 2002.
“Following that Barack immediately returned an earmark of $1,000,000 to this hospital (looks like payback for the hire).”
Obama requested an earmark for the hospital in 2006 that never went thru. So the hospital received nothing. But you’ll also notice the time line is wrong.
“When Barack was elected to the national senate seat Michelle received a magical raise that almost tripled her salary to the current $317,000.”
“She’s terrific,” added Michael
Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.
Hospitals spokesman John Easton told the Tribune that Michelle Obama’s salary is in line with those of the 16 other vice presidents at the not-for-profit medical center
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
Major Amendment dropped from the STIMULUS! YOUR JOBS!
It is the Last chance to save American jobs and to demand our lawmakers reinstate E-Verify as a MANDATORY law. These pariah lawmakers already killed it in Stimulus. Only the US legal population have the power to force reluctant politicians to vote for this law. The usual anti-sovereignty, pro-illegal immigrant critics are trying to sabotage it. Along with corrupt politicians who receive campaign contribution from the lobbyists, to weaken our immigration laws.
Sen. Harry Reid leads the wolf pack with the only efficient tool we have in our arsenal to stop the escalation of illegal labor. March 6 is the deadline to revitalize E-Verify for another 5 years or let it die. Without its power American Workers are at the mercy of the pariah business industry who can then employ illegal foreigners at minimum wage. If you value your job, within any trade or profession it is not safe. Even the high professional jobs have been stolen by visa over-stayers. Not every illegal alien comes from South of the border. Make your demands known at the Washington Switchboard Keep calling and don’t stop.
Posted by: Brittancus | March 4, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
“A commenter said Bush had approved of the earmarks in the bill Obama is about to sign.
I said the opposite is true, that he was going to veto it.”
Sorry maybee, I was under the impression that you were casting Bush as some anti-pork crusader.
Are you?
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
Nancy Pelosi refused to present Bush with the spending bill last year because he made it plain he would not sign it given the bloated routine spending and the earmarks.
Instead Pelosi proceeded to send to Bush temporary spending bills which were still pork loaded but prevented the the proverbial government shutdown.
Pelosi deliberately held back this omnibus spending bill so that she would have a President who didn’t care how much we spent, evidence the debt ridden faux stimulus-pork bill.
This bill was not written and completed until Obama was in office. Congress did not vote on it until Obama was in office.
It is a lying excuse to claim this is leftover business.
Just like every lying sentence we hear such as his pride in the lack of wasteful spending in the porkulus bill.
However, the media will get a pretty soundbite and can continue their pro-Obama, no matter what, agenda.
Posted by: BO Needs to Go | March 4, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
Sorry maybee, I was under the impression that you were casting Bush as some anti-pork crusader.
Are you?
==========
No. But he was finally trying to hold the line.
As I said elsewhere, President Bush had the most trouble trying to reign in spending proposals from his own party.
Obama is having the same problem.
Clinton was so successful because he and the Republicans fought each other on spending.
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
Wow Ryan C. is now defending Michelle Obama’s $300,000 salary.
So he must agree with Michelle Obama that “America is down-right mean” and
So mean that this $300+ thousand job was created just for her. Interesting that this job was quietly eliminated when Obama became President.
Posted by: Peace Train | March 4, 2009, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
Gibbs admits the Limbaugh fight is counter-productive.”
Actual story sans right wing BS
The press secretary was asked about the small but growing backlash among political observers over the White House’s strategy of elevating Limbaugh, Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli and others as the face of the administration’s opposition. From a campaign that consistently derided the talking heads of the commentariat, was this not hypocritical?
“It may be counterproductive,” Gibbs replied. “I’ll give you that. Are there days when I just turn my television off, yes… Look, there are days where your head drops from listening to arguments that aren’t necessarily centered on some important issue, but finding two people at completely opposite ends of the spectrum to yell the loudest for a seven minute segment before they go on to something else.”
Shouldn’t the White House — if this is their sentiment of the news media culture — avoid putting more of a spotlight on the main culprits?
“I won’t kick the cable people out of the briefing room,” Gibbs replied, “I’m certainly opposed to doing something as radical as that. Look, it is out there; we deal with it. I certainly criticize it and I even occasionally watch it. Whether it makes me hypocritical or not, I certainly believe that feeding it, undoubtedly, I will plead guilty to being counterproductive.”
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
Good job Jake!!….Keep this up and you might get a sunday morning show…heh heh heh…..since George Stepsonofobama has been exposed for his dirty tricks with his prancer friend Rahm Emmanual….to launch ‘Rushgate’….heh heh heh…..
Posted by: J Moore | March 4, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
From an earlier Sun Times article by Lynn Sweet. She is reporting on earmark info released by the Obama campaign. This blog does not allow links but you can search it at the sun times.
Here’s one highlight: Obama sought money for the University of Chicago Hospitals. Wife Michelle works for the University of Chicago Hospitals, appointed in spring 2005 as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals. She is now on leave from the job to campaign for her husband. Top campaign adviser and friend Valerie Jarrett is the Chair of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board and also Chair of the Executive Committee of that board. She has also been named Vice-Chair of the University’s Board of Trustees. Obama taught at the U. of Chicago law school and the Obama’s two daughters attend school there.
from the Obama campaign:
Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion.
Posted by: BO Needs to Go | March 4, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
Ryan C:Obama was elected to the IL Senate in 2006. Michele Obama did not start working for the University of Chicago Hospitals until 2002.
=========
Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2006. He was elected to the IL Senate in 1996.
Barack Obama was on the board of Public Allies and resigned just before Michelle Obama became executive director of Public Allies.
Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school when he ran- eventually unopposed- for IL State Senate in 1996. At that time, Michelle Obama received her position with the University of Chicago.
Valerie Jarret then hired her for the University of Chicago medical center.
Michelle Obama then hired David Axelrod to consult on the program mentioned earlier in the thread.
They then hired close friend Dr. Whittaker, who was leaving the job Blagojevich had given him after Barack Obama recommended him via Tony Rezko.
Dr. Whittaker has absorbed Michelle Obama’s old responsibilities as Jarret, Obama, and Axelrod have moved to the White House.
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
Fantastic job Jake. Gibbs simply doesn’t have an answer for you, except to plug his ears and yell “last year’s business!!”. Same thing yesterday on your question concerning the Freeman appointment. Complete non-answer. This guy makes me miss Scott McClellan.
Posted by: Matt | March 4, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
Did Bush inherit Clinton’s recession from the dot com bust?
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 4, 2009, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
Of course, our Greatest Smartest Clueless Leader has zero knowledge of anything. It’s all other people’s fault, if he falls in the polls.
Posted by: two cats | March 4, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
This White House crowd:
It doesn’t matter what they say
It matters what they do
So they’ll deny it all the day
Then slip the pork by you
Posted by: Mitch in NC | March 4, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
Way to go, Jake. I am pleased that you call Gibbs on his junk. And I am amazed at the folks here who still insist on defending this bill on the same grounds that Gibbs stumbled through– it’s last year’s business. Yeah, well, times have changed since last year. Conditions on the ground have really changed. So let’s change the bill while we still can.
Are you guys planning to continue to sniff about the necessity to move on and ignore the pork in this package now that several prominent Democrats are coming out to say they will vote against the bill and request that the president veto it? This is NOT a partisan issue. Yes, many of the earmarks come from Republicans. So why not put them, and their Democratic colleagues, on notice that there is a new regime in town and that change is afoot? Why not draw the line here and now?
Obama needs to live up to his pledge starting here and now, not later. It can be done. And I applaud the Senators and Congressmen of both parties who are speaking up to say it should be done.
Posted by: moderate | March 4, 2009, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
good stuff, moderate
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
“Did Bush inherit Clinton’s recession from the dot com bust?”
That is certainly the claim from the supposed party of personal responsibility.
For the GOP the buck always stops somewhere else.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm
“Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion”
Yes, an earmark that never went thru.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
“Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2006. He was elected to the IL Senate in 1996.”
Doh!
“Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school when he ran- eventually unopposed- for IL State Senate in 1996. At that time, Michelle Obama received her position with the University of Chicago.”
And what was that position?
“Valerie Jarret then hired her for the University of Chicago medical center.”
In 2002, correct?
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
Jake, how long before they pull your press pass, The stimulus bill had plenty of pork despite their statements to the contrary. Keep them honest.
Posted by: Philip V. | March 4, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
This “blame the previous administration” is so much BS. First, BO was a member of congress at the time…how did he vote on any of this as it was brought forward.
Second, as Jake said, the bill isn’t finished yet…get rid of the crap.
Finally, part of the reason that the bill wasn’t passed under the previous administration was that Bush and Congress couldn’t see eye to eye. So how can you blame them?
Posted by: jb | March 4, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
$8 billion in earmarks and Obama won’t stop it despite his promise.
So much for Sen. Schumer (D) saying Americans didn’t care about a few pesky earmarks.
I don’t know when $8 billion became a few. Maybe only in DC when Obama promised an ethical administration and gave us more tax cheats than any other administration.
Posted by: Peach | March 4, 2009, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
Let’s be clear.
Michelle Obama was hired in 2002 with a salary of approx 120k at U of C.
In January 2005 Barack was sworn in as US Senator.
In March 2005, Michelle was given a $200k raise to approx $316k for a “newly created” position at U of C.
In Feb 2006, Senator Obama requested a $1 million earmark for U of C.
In January 2009, Michelle resigned her position at U of C and the position was eliminated.
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 4, 2009, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
“Did Bush inherit Clinton’s recession from the dot com bust?”
“That is certainly the claim from the supposed party of personal responsibility. ”
So, what do you say?
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 4, 2009, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm
Michelle Obama was hired in 2002 with a salary of approx 120k at U of C.
In January 2005 Barack was sworn in as US Senator.
In March 2005, Michelle was given a $200k raise to approx $316k for a “newly created” position at U of C.
In Feb 2006, Senator Obama requested a $1 million earmark for U of C.
In January 2009, Michelle resigned her position at U of C and the position was eliminated.
Posted by: Sigmonde | Mar 4, 2009 5:44:33 PM
********
That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? Thanks for posting the facts.
Posted by: Peach | March 4, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
“So, what do you say?”
I’m not sure.
Are we still calling the dotcom bust a recession?
While economic growth slowed to a crawl there was no contraction.
I will stipulate that the DotCom bust was not Bush’s fault.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
“In Feb 2006, Senator Obama requested a $1 million earmark for U of C.”
Did that earmark go thru?
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
Ryan C:And what was that position?
“Valerie Jarret then hired her for the University of Chicago medical center.”
In 2002, correct?
============
Her first position with the University of Chicago was position created for her as a developer of community services.
In 2002, while her husband was on the State Senate’s Health and Welfare committe (which he later chaired), Valerie Jarrett pulled her over to the hospital. It was then the two of them hired David Axelrod and later, Dr. Eric Whittaker.
As others have noted, when Barack Obama won his US Senate Seat, she got a promotion and a salary increase.
Again, what are you disputing?
Posted by: MayBee | March 4, 2009, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
“Again, what are you disputing?”
Originally?
The post that Obama received kickbacks.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 4, 2009, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm
What is not being said:
Some of the earmarks are for projects that are actually urgently needed, useful, and cost-saving in the long term. Some of them are simply shoving money in a hole and burning it. Some of them are somebody’s uncle getting a payback. Of course, we’ll never know which is which reading the mainstream press.
The problem is our over simplified political discourse and these press agents don’t seem to be much help.
Posted by: Flash Override | March 4, 2009, 7:11 pm 7:11 pm
“”Again, what are you disputing?”
Originally?
The post that Obama received kickbacks.”
@ Ryan C -
I think it is pretty obvious that Sen. Obama received kick-backs…every month in Mrs. Obama’s paycheck! Surely you can see this.
I’ve been in the (whitecollar) workforce 20 years and I have yet to meet anyone who has received anything near a 160%/$200k raise for a position that did not exist previously.
And kudos to earlier post that stated hypocricy (at best) and dishonesty (at worst) that America is a “mean country” when she’s pulling in almost 10 times the pay of an average American worker.
We know Mr. Obama has never created a job (outside of a campaign or congressional staff position) nor does he have any clue how businesses operate. I’m beginning to wonder if Mrs. Obama might be more qualified than The Community Organizer…At this point, it sure looks plausible…
Posted by: tjp612 | March 4, 2009, 8:32 pm 8:32 pm
“I think it is pretty obvious that Sen. Obama received kick-backs.”
You would have to be either naive or just plain dumb to not realize the connection of a newly installed US Senator, a $200k raise to the Senator’s wife, and a $1 million earmark request for her employer. Especially when everyone involved are all politically intertwined. lol
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 4, 2009, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
Hey, Jake, welcome to Orwell’s “1984.” I really appreciate that you’re asking serious questions of the press secretary, but what’s most patently obvious here is how systematically you and your colleagues in the mainstream media have avoided paying any attention to the president’s extremely liberal ideology since the very beginning of his campaign.
And now, nearly two months into his world record spending spree, it is as though you’re just “shocked, shocked(!)” that last year’s most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, as president might not be in a hurry to slow his already meteoric pace of spending.
That our mainstream media sold its soul to the secular god of political correctness to ensure Barack Obama’s victory might even be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic.
Posted by: Thank God for Karma | March 4, 2009, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
“You would have to be either naive or just plain dumb to not realize the connection of a newly installed US Senator, a $200k raise to the Senator’s wife, and a $1 million earmark request for her employer.”
A raise that put her on level with other VPs and an earmark that never went thru.
Quite a conspiracy you got there.
Of course you guys didn’t say boo when former CEO Cheney failed to divest himself from Haliburton who in turn made how many billions in no bid contracts?
So color me unimpressed with the recent surge of of concern about ethics from right wingers.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 5, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm